Question 48. What do you think about siting development along transport corridors?

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. The site promoted at Albert Road, Stow-cum-Quy is a good example of where the proximity of employment and residential opportunities is adjacent to an established public transport corridor. Given this location, we are of the view that siting developments along or adjacent to public transport corridors is highly appropriate. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. The site promoted at Horningsea Road, Fen Ditton, is a good example of where the proximity of employment and residential opportunities is adjacent to an established public transport corridor. Given this location, we are of the view that siting developments along or adjacent to public transport corridors is highly appropriate. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist, which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

As referred to in earlier answers, Pigeon consider this option to be a very important component in delivering a sustainable development strategy in the new Local Plan. Reducing reliance on the private car, minimizing travel and reducing congestion are all positive outcomes of pursuing this option. This approach would capitalize on the significant investment planned by central and local government to enable the continued economic growth and success of the Cambridge City region and the various proposals from the Greater Cambridge Partnership and Combined Authority as set out in the Local Transport Plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In this context, Hardwick lies within one of the most significant transport corridors into Cambridge. This is being prioritized for investment through the proposals for the Cambridge to Cambourne bus link which would form the first phase of the Cam Metro, and the potential for this to link in with the East West Rail proposals and the new station proposed for Cambourne.

Supported. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. It is noted that the area to the west of Cambridge is the focus for a number of proposed and potential transport infrastructure projects i.e. Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Corridor, Comberton Greenway, Barton Greenway, Madingley Road Cycle Improvements and Cambridge Autonomous Metro. It is considered that the site promoted by North BRLOG at South West Cambridge is well related to all of these proposed projects; the Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Corridor, Comberton Greenway, Barton Greenway are either within or immediately adjacent to the site. An urban extension at South West Cambridge would support the delivery of these transport infrastructure projects and increase access by walking, cycling and public transport. It is for these reasons that land at South West Cambridge should be allocated in the emerging GCLP.

It is reasonable to look at transport corridors, but there will be a need for close consideration of whether a corridor has or will achieve sufficient capacity. For instance, a railway line may not be able to increase the number of services, or passengers carried, or its stations may not be capable of having adequate facilities, to cope with planned development. There is also the risk of many South Cambridgeshire locations being required to host sites for large car parks serving employees and businesses of the City of Cambridge.

If along railroad yes

Makes sense to cater for those who already communte to places like London.

This is not a good option if it implies jobs don't need to be co-located with new homes. Even if the transport options are fully sustainable, quality of life is reduced if a large fraction of time is spent commuting to work and back, and it doesn't encourage a sense of community if most social activities are in centres away from the development sites.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the concept of concentrating development along transport corridors, as long as there are effective public transport services and investment in any the new communities.

It is reasonable to look at transport corridors, but there will be a need for close consideration of whether a corridor has or will achieve sufficient capacity. For instance, a railway line may not be able to increase the number of services, or passengers carried, or its stations may not be capable of having adequate facilities, to cope with planned development. There is also the risk that many South Cambridgeshire locations will be required to host large-scale car parks for the benefit of the City of Cambridge. Existing settlements may see few benefits from these, and indeed they may well give rise to more traffic through villages on the way to park and ride or travel hub sites.

Leave the Green Belt alone. No more Growth! Challenge the projections.

We are unable to answer Q42 as it requires that the options are ranked. We do not considered that any one of these options in Q42 is likely to provide for the development needs of Greater Cambridge. Rather elements of each part of the hierarchy are likely to be required. Efficient use should be made of all areas for development, subject to design quality being maintained. Development should be located in areas where it can support maximum travel by non-car modes, close to jobs and series and along public transport corridors. That is the case whether they be urban extensions, new settlements or village growth. Some development in key village location will help support services and meet local affordable housing needs to support communities. Such an approach is not about “dispersal” it is about supporting local communities. Planned new settlements can help deliver growth in a holistic way.

(1) This should be the guiding principle for spatial planning in the new Plan. See Q38 above. (2) Integrating transport and spatial planning is essential to reduce congestion, maximise productivity and environmental quality. Strategic decisions on the location of major new development in the Greater Cambridge area should be transport corridor led, located along multi-modal transport corridors with interchanges and nodes for local commuter use as well as long distance connections. A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet dual carriageway improvements, when with CBRR’s EWR route, create a road-rail corridor with potential for modal split journeys. (3) Multi-modal transport corridors with integrated transport options were a major recommendation of the National Infrastructure Report. * Wherever possible, these should define the routes taken by road, heavy rail, light rail, guided busway, CAM, cycle way and pedestrian way. * Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc

People will still need to travel a lot with this option. We need to reduce commuting.

The amount growth proposed along transport corridors should not detrimentally impact on the aspirations for boosting growth within surrounding market towns through the Combined Authority’s Prospectuses for Growth programme. Siting growth within public transport corridors should consider the cumulative impacts not only of transport demand between the new development and Cambridge but also between the new development and the outer public transport destination of the corridor.

Please refer to the response to question 42

Grosvenor and USS support this approach because it expands the economic benefits of the urban area. It maintains the strength of the city core whilst locating jobs and homes along transport links and providing connections to other market towns. This option should, however, form part of a blended spatial strategy in order to meet the growth aspirations of the area. Trumpington South sits along a highly accessible transport corridor and is within close proximity to the existing Park & Ride, the emerging Cambridge South Railway Station and the proposed Cambridge South West Travel Hub. With its proximity to the city centre and other significant employment bases, people living here would have a mobility choice. This is clearly identified in the Mobility Strategy which sets out the key benefits of the location, with its accessibility to existing facilities and employment but also its local transport services.

This has been fought against ever since the planning system was first created to defend against unfettered development on arterial roads. In Cambridge, university academics bought land to protect it against such damaging developments. Building sustainable development involves housing, jobs, community infra-structure in one place. Transport corridors may not be a thing in the future.

I do not support developments within the Green Belt so for this reason I would not in favour of siting development along transport corridors if it includes using land which is Green Belt.

Great idea but transport corridors beg the question of why they cannot and should not be extended laterally through feeder transportation. In the absence of lateral development of linkages, the developments along the transport corridors become unhealthily focussed on the corridor route itself creating satellite commuter communities.

New developments located nearby to transport corridors should be limited. They should not be built unless they can demonstrate that there will be now impact on new communities such as through air pollution, noise pollution, lack of access, lack of community facilities, lack of shops and employment opportunities.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. For example, the “Linton Greenway” is a proposed designated pedestrian, cycle and equestrian route will link Linton to Cambridge. The Linton Greenway will run alongside the A1307 between the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Granta Park, Great Abington and Linton, providing an important alternative transport route into the Campus for those living to the south-east of Cambridge, in villages such as Linton. In addition, a rural travel hub to serve the greenway is proposed to be located between Bartlow Road and the A1307, to the south of the site put forward for residential development south of Horseheath Road (north of Bartlow Road). In light of the above, sustainable villages such as Linton, should be prioritised for new residential development which is of a large scale to take advantage of the transport corridors as well as proposed travel hubs and can be master planned to sufficiently incorporate a mix of dwellings, open space, further facilities and landscaping.

It makes good sense to use existing transport corridors, both road and rail, rather than spending money creating new ones.

Transport corridors could include cycle routes?

Only if the public transport services along them is upgraded to meet any additional demand and to reduce noice and air pollution; by any or all of train, tram, guided bus way, cycle ways.

Siting development along transport corridors seems almost as stupid as building isolated settlements then attempting to join them up – the transport is only one dimension of the challenge.

Development along public transport corridors may be appropriate later in the plan period when these corridors have been created. eg CAM, East/West rail. At present, most of these projects are at an early stage and are not certain to be fully realised. Transport corridors based on existing bus services are constrained by road and service capacity. Issues of cost, journey time and frequency often make them an unattractive option. This option should only be implemented when the routes of CAM, East/West rail etc have been fixed and there is a reasonable certainty of completion.

Public Transport essential

Same as 47