Question 51: Generic Question

Traffic tester Traffic monitoring is difficult as each motorist has their own plans. Organising them is difficult. The traffic tester is an attempt so to do. Physically a traffic tester is a very long pole with a camera, or a few camera on it. It could be mounted in the middle of a roundabout or at traffic lights. Throughout the day the Traffic Tester would record exactly what happens at that road junction. At the same time, another unit would monitor events at a nearby junction. All this data could be collected together on a computer and pattern recognition used to work out which vehicle did what. The team could then test hypotheses of changing traffic light timing to see the effects. The cost of making such traffic testers might be significant but so might their benefits. Maybe the authorities have such a facility.

No uploaded files for public display

Sport England would encourage all new developments to plan for healthy lifestyles, to make provision for people to participate in sport, or physical activity such as walking and cycling. Existing environments should also be enhanced to encourage healthy lifestyles. We would be happy to assist in the development of planning policies to protect, enhance and provide opportunities for sport and physical activity. Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced ‘Active Design’ (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government’s desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design. Further information on developing planning policies for sport and physical activity can be found in our 'Planning for Sport Guidance' (2019), which can be accessed here: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 - Additional Info on site 2.1 Land at Frog End, Shepreth, is submitted as a potential allocation for mixed use residential and employment in the Local Plan. The extent of the site is shown on the site location plan at Appendix 1. 2.2 The Site is located on the south-western edge of Shepreth and is currently in agricultural use. It is relatively flat and well contained by existing tree planting. The railway line runs along the western boundary of the Site. 2.3 There is an existing agricultural access to the site from Meldreth Road to the north, between two properties. There is a second access to the site via the existing farm and Moor End Lane, which forms a junction with Frog End and the High Street 2.4 The site is immediately adjoining the existing development framework boundary of Shepreth. It is bound by existing residential properties to the north and north-east, by areas of open space and Manor Farm to the east and open countryside to the south and west. 2.5 The L-Moor Shepreth SSSI lies to the south-west of the Site. 2.6 The Shepreth Conservation Area lies to the east of the Site, which includes the Grade II* Listed Church of All Saints, together with a number of other Grade II Listed Buildings. In addition, two further Grade II Listed Buildings lie to the south of the Site. The Initial Heritage Assessment prepared by Bidwells LLP and accompanying these representations identifies and assesses the significance of these heritage assets. 2.7 A network of Public Rights of Ways run through and adjacent to the site including Footpath 200/1 that runs through the site from the High Street to the east to the railway line where it meets and diverges from Footpath 200/2 through to Meldreth Road and Footpath 200/12 that runs to the south of the site. 2.8 The site is within the Environment Agency defined Flood Zone 1 in terms of flooding from rivers and surface water (very low risk of flooding). Existing Planning Policy Context 2.9 National Planning Policy advises that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It adds that planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby (NPPF, Paragraph 78). 2.10 National Planning Policy also confirms that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt (NPPF, paragraph 80). The NPPF specifically states that “Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development” 2.11 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) (2018) and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Industrial Strategy (2019) have each outlined ambitious plans for growth over the next 20 years. 2.12 Furthermore, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) has set a target of doubling the regional economic growth (GVA) over the next 25 years. This requires the area going beyond what it has achieved in the past (to double an economy over twenty-five years requires an average annual growth rate of 2.81%. Historically, since 1998, the local economy has only grown at around 2.5%.). Achieving this requires employment growth and more importantly productivity growth, as we are already at comparatively high levels of employment. 2.13 In order to deliver this ‘step change’ in economic performance, the Consultation document states that around 2,900 homes a year would need to be built in Greater Cambridge if the jobs growth is achieved – an indicative total of 66,700 homes over 2017 – 2040. This compares with 1,800 homes per year to meet local needs using the Government’s standard method. 2.14 The Housing Needs Report by Bidwells LLP also confirms there is a need to provide for an amount of housing above the standard methodology to take account of the pressing and worsening affordability issue and to support the aspiration to grow the Greater Cambridge economy and double the GVA across the Greater Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area. The Opportunity 2.15 Shepreth lies within a key public transport corridor, with a railway station providing direct links to Cambridge (a journey time of just 12 minutes) and beyond to London. There are off road cycle links to Melbourn and Cambridge. The Site is located within 800m of Shepreth railway station, which equates to an 8-minute walk or 2-minute cycle ride. The proximity of the Site to the station therefore makes it readily accessible by active modes of travel, particularly cycling. 2.16 Furthermore, the A10 runs to the east of the village, which is a strategic transport corridor within Greater Cambridge, where numerous transport improvements are planned to deliver a high quality public transport corridor, including: ● Proposed improved transport interchange at Trumpington A10/M11 junction (approximately 8.5km from the Site); and ● Park and ride and potential CAM station site at Hauxton (approximately 8km from the Site). 2.17 The nearest bus stop to the Site is located on the A10 to the east of the Site. Stagecoach operates bus service D/A from the stop which provides an hourly service between Cambridge and Royston. The accompanying Transport Appraisal confirms that this stop is within a 3-minute cycle ride from the Site and a 14-minute walk. 2.18 There are also excellent local cycle connections from the Site to Melbourn and Cambridge. Furthermore, Shepreth is closely associated with the neighbouring villages of Foxton, Barrington, Meldreth and Melbourn. These settlements are within walking and cycling distance from Shepreth and linked by the public footpath network, thus providing a further range of services and facilities as well as extensive employment opportunities at Melbourn Science Park. 2.19 As such, the Site is well located to reduce the need to travel by car, and can promote sustainable travel. Further public transport enhancements are also proposed that will improve connectivity to Shepreth by sustainable and active modes of transport. 2.20 A variety of facilities and services are also currently available within walking distance of the Site including a village hall, a pre-school, a church, two pubs with dining and a tearoom. The village is also home to Docwra’s Manor Garden (Shepreth) and Shepreth Wildlife Park, which offer formal outdoor recreation activities. Shepreth also has a Recreation Ground, which has a senior football pitch and cricket pitch; an area of informal open space known as ‘Old School Field’; community growing space, which includes an allotment and a community orchard; a burial ground; and a network of public rights of way, providing access to local countryside and beauty spots such as the River Shep. 2.21 Land at Frog End, Shepreth provides an ideal opportunity to create a sustainable extension to the village. There is an opportunity to deliver a diverse range of accommodation types, community infrastructure and initiatives to meet the needs of those within the locality, and within the wider district, on the Site. 2.22 To that end, the emerging concept proposal for the Site has been informed by a ‘Village Assessment’; a high level socio-economic assessment of Shepreth, covering open space, community infrastructure and employment. It has been prepared by Bidwells LLP to understand the opportunities and benefits that development in the village can bring, based on desk top research. 2.23 The Village Assessment has concluded the following potential opportunities for the Site in terms of open space, community facilities, education and employment. These have in turn informed the emerging concept proposal for the Site. Open Space ● Additional Local Areas of Play (LAPs) to serve residents of both existing and new homes. Theme of each lap to provide a broader range of opportunity for young children than currently exists in the village, thereby improving both the quality and quantity of play experiences; ● Provision of a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP), imaginative play and youth facilities including a range of play equipment and play space that offers a choice of play experience beyond that provided by typical play equipment. They would be located to serve both the current population and new development, to ensure maximum walking accessibility for all and help integrate new and existing families; ● Onsite provision of informal open space to meet SCDC standards for new development and make up the deficit of existing provision. Its location and accessibility via new walking / cycling routes that integrate the new and existing residents maximises the opportunity for informal socialising when people ‘bump’ into each other; ● Opportunities to contribute towards offsite improvements in the quality of the changing facilities in the village hall or new pavilion on the Recreation Ground; ● Opportunities to contribute towards offsite improvements to sports on offer at the Recreation Ground; Community Facilities ● Onsite provision of flexible, mixed-use space that could be used for retail by a local entrepreneur, to serve residents, employees and tourists; Education ● Improvements to public footpaths / cycleways to local schools, particularly Barrington and Foxton and expansion of cycle infrastructure at Shepreth railway station; ● Explore options to expand current pre-school provision including the need for additional space. This could be incorporated as part of a mixed-use area to provide facilities for residents and workers. Employment ● Provision of employment land to support local business growth (including incubation units for start-up businesses) and the wider regional / national growth objectives. The site offers a more affordable location for businesses, whilst also benefitting from close proximity to the station. 2.24 In addition to the above, M Scott Properties Ltd are committed to delivering an enhanced level of affordable housing (45%) on the Site, in an area of high housing need. This would be delivered as part of a housing mix that responds to both local and District wide needs, providing new homes across a variety of types and tenures, potentially including self and custom build and specialist accommodation (subject to demand). 2.25 This rare opportunity to provide 45% affordable housing on the site has only been made available through the balanced views of the Landowner and Promoter associated with the project. 2.26 To inform this proposal further, an Affordable Housing Need report has been prepared by Bidwells LLP and accompanies these representations. The report seeks to identify the need for affordable housing in South Cambridgeshire, and the role of the Site in meeting that need. The report confirms that affordability is a significant issue in the District, particularly for those in the lowest percentile of earnings. At present there is a limited supply of smaller properties, which typically are desired by those wishing to downsize, starting out on the property ladder or in housing need. Land at Frog End could also potentially help provide housing to meet the needs of particular population groups with specific physical requirements such as those with dementia (particularly those not yet diagnosed), people with physical difficulties and older people. Responding to the Four Big Themes 2.27 Since the submission of the ‘Call for Sites’ representations in March 2019, more detailed analysis of the site constraints and opportunities has been undertaken, informed by further technical assessment work. A summary of this assessment work is provided below. These assessments have specifically sought to respond to the four ‘big themes’ of the emerging Local Plan and in turn help shape the emerging concept proposals for the Site. Climate Change 2.28 The two Councils and the County Council have committed to achieve net zero carbon by 2050. In order to meet this challenge, the Local Plan will need to plan for low-carbon lifestyles and encourage low carbon activities and alternatives to private car use. 2.29 The Local Plan will also need to promote highly sustainable patterns for growth, by locating development in sustainable areas such as Shepreth to enable travel by low-carbon modes thus reducing car use to ease congestion and reduce airborne pollutants. The same measures offer opportunities to promote active travel choices (walking, cycling) to enhance health and wellbeing. 2.30 Land at Frog End would achieve both of these measures, being located immediately adjoining an existing settlement and within walking distance of a railway station, being of a size able to accommodate a sustainable level of growth for the village and within the A10 strategic growth corridor and its associated active travel and public transport opportunities. 2.31 A Transport Appraisal for the Site has been prepared by Cannon Consulting Engineers and accompanies these representations. This confirms that the site is extremely well located for access to key facilities and services, including transport infrastructure such as Shepreth Railway Station and the A10 which is served by northbound and southbound services. Furthermore, there are a number of strategic schemes coming forward in association with the A10 Strategic Public Transport Corridor which will improve mobility in the area. 2.32 A number of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures could also be incorporated in to redevelopment proposals for the Site, such as: ● Passive design measures which lower the cooling requirement and have shorter lifecycles, such as solar shading and high fabric performance; ● Improvements to water efficiency, such as water efficient fittings and metering and systems which recover water; ● Design measures to minimise waste volume as far as possible, through the careful selection of materials and the use of techniques such as off-site and modern methods of construction, material consumption, waste volumes, and product quality; ● Improvements to flood resilience through incorporation of a range of future climate scenarios that better manage the water runoff into the wider drainage system; ● Green infrastructure to offer greater resilience to a warmer and drier climate than currently exists and to provide broader ecosystem services such as forming part of a sustainable drainage system. Biodiversity and Green Spaces 2.33 Both Councils have declared biodiversity emergencies and, as members of the Natural Cambridgeshire Local Nature Partnership, the Councils support the Partnership’s vision to double the area of rich wildlife habitats and natural greenspaces within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. 2.34 M Scott Properties Ltd recognise the importance of improving the natural environment and are committed to achieving in excess of 10% Net Environmental Gain in respect to potential redevelopment proposals at Land at Frog End. The Site in particular presents an opportunity to provide new areas of green infrastructure to mitigate against climate change, through creating resilient new habitats. These new habitats can also create health and wellbeing benefits through improved provision of green spaces to relax and socialise. 2.35 M Scott Properties Ltd is a member of the Natural Cambridgeshire Developers’ Forum seeking to understand best practice and to understand where opportunities exist to increase biodiversity on sites. Their sites are assessed against the Developing with Nature Toolkit, with a view to exceeding the proposed ‘Charter Mark’ threshold. Through the proposed development at Frog End, there is scope to double the L-Moor SSSI adjacent to the site. M Scott Properties Ltd are also committed to the ‘doubling with nature’ initiative promoted by Natural Cambridgeshire. 2.36 A site-wide ecological appraisal and background desk study was completed by Geosphere and accompanies these representations. The key findings from the appraisal are summarised below: ● There are no overriding ecological constraints to development of the Site; ● There are no statutory or non-statutory designated sites within the Site; ● L-Moor SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) is adjacent to the site but subject to provision of an appropriate buffer zone this would not preclude development on the Site; ● The habitats within the site are of limited intrinsic ecological interest; ● The site presents opportunities to achieve a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain on site through a sensitively designed, landscape-led scheme which would incorporate, wherever possible, native species of local provenance and those of known value to native wildlife to offer biodiversity gains post-development. 2.37 A Tree Survey and Constraints Plan was prepared by Geosphere Environmental in February 2020 and accompanies these representations. This confirms that there are a number of Category A trees and trees subject to TPO but these are largely located around the boundaries of the site and as such are able to be retained. 2.38 There are some Category A and B trees located as lines of trees separating the arable fields and small sections of these groups may have to be removed to facilitate development. However, where possible the least vegetated areas will be targeted for removal. The emerging concept proposal also illustrates that the scheme will be able to deliver extensive new landscaping and trees in compensation for any loss. 2.39 In addition to the above, a Phase 1 – Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment has been completed by Geosphere Environmental and accompanies these representations. This confirms that the site has been largely open, undeveloped agricultural land over the historical period studied (1886 – 2020), with the exception of the southern field where a number of properties were noted to exist from the earliest map until their removal in the 1970’s. As such, it concluded that no contaminants were identified that may impact upon the site. Wellbeing and Social Inclusion 2.40 National Planning Policy requires that Local Plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. 2.41 As referred to above, the Local Plan will need to promote sustainable development in rural areas in locations that allow existing villages to grow and thrive but also enable travel by low-carbon modes such as walking, cycling and public transport, thus reducing car use to ease congestion and reduce airborne pollutants. The same measure offers opportunities to promote active travel choices (walking, cycling) to enhance health, wellbeing and social inclusion. 2.42 Land at Frog End, Shepreth is one such example of sustainable development that can positively influence individual’s health and lifestyle. Further measures of how the Site could achieve ‘good growth’ that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion, is outlined below: ● Securing improvements in air quality through promotion of a low car use development thus reducing car use to ease congestion and reducing airborne pollutants; ● Encouraging healthy lifestyles through provision of employment opportunities in a highly accessible location by low-carbon modes, thus encouraging active travel; ● Proximity to local services and amenities bringing opportunities for social interaction and community development; ● Opportunities for new build design to provide all-electric heating and hot water systems to avoid the on-site combustion of fossil fuels; ● Creation of a safe and inclusive community through provision of a wide range of jobs; and ● Creation of high quality buildings and public realm. Great Places 2.43 A key issue for Land at Frog End will be how to balance heritage and countryside protection with the demands of growth. 2.44 In terms of heritage protection, the Site lies to the south of Shepreth Conservation Area, which includes the Grade II* Listed Church of All Saints, together with a number of other Grade II Listed Buildings. In addition, two further Grade II Listed Buildings lie to the south of the Site. In order to protect the significance and setting of the Conservation Area and the Church in particular, the proposed layout seeks to incorporate a significant area of retained open space within the centre of the Site. This will ensure that views of the Church of All Saints are retained from Meldreth Road to the west and from public rights of way to the south. 2.45 An initial Heritage Assessment has been prepared by Bidwells LLP which has informed the emerging concept proposal and accompanies these representations. As the design proposals progress, a detailed Heritage Appraisal will be required in order to ensure impacts are mitigated as much as possible through the location, form, scale and design of the scheme. However, at this stage it is considered that there would be minor adverse impact caused to the setting of the nearby heritage assets. This is at the level of “less than substantial” harm. 2.46 Ultimately, a balanced judgement would be required for any development proposals in terms of the impact on the significance of designated heritage assets and the public benefits arising. The Site has the potential to deliver significant public benefits, as outlined below: ● The opportunity to deliver housing, employment and community infrastructure to help meet the needs of Shepreth and the local area; ● Supporting Shepreth’s economy and community, including local shops and services at a time when villages are seeing a reduction in services and facilities; ● Housing development in a sustainable travel location: high (and improving) public transport accessibility; cycling accessibility to transport interchanges and Cambridge; ● Development that brings health and wellbeing benefits to its residents and the wider community through: - high quality housing design; - additional public open space which offers mental and physical wellbeing benefits; - opportunity to travel sustainably helping to tackle air pollution as well as bring physical benefits; ● Helping to maximise the benefits arising from major investment in the A10 corridor associated with sustainable transport and active travel; and ● A promoter who wishes to work with the community in order to shape a proposal which meets the needs of and can provide wider benefits to the village. 2.47 Details on the emerging concept proposal is provided below and within the accompanying Vision Document. The intention is to create a sustainable, mixed-use village extension, incorporating a series of distinctive character areas and with extensive areas of high quality public open space for existing and proposed new residents. The Emerging Concept Proposals 2.48 A suite of technical appraisals has been undertaken that have assessed the Site in terms of its capacity to accommodate the proposed development and its relationship with the surrounding area; all of which demonstrate that there are no insurmountable constraints to development of the Site. 2.49 As such, the Site is capable of being sensitively designed so as to develop as a distinct place within its own character, responding appropriately to its landscape and heritage setting. There is also scope to provide improvements to existing community infrastructure provision for Shepreth residents. 2.50 The supporting Vision Document includes further details for the proposed development on the Site, which includes a mixed-use development comprising the following elements: ● An enhanced level of affordable housing (45%), addressing specific local needs and providing new homes across a variety of types and tenures, potentially to include for key worker accommodation; ● Residential development for approximately 200 new homes to meet local needs, including:  single-storey bungalows (LifeLong HomesTM) and almshouse-style properties to address the needs of people aged over 60 as well as those with or supporting someone with a disability;  provision of self or custom build housing;  opportunities for a Community Land Trust; ● The residential developable area comprises approximately 7.8 ha, which equates to an average density of 31 dwellings per hectare (dph) which is considered suitable for an edge of village extension; ● Provision of approximately 36,000 sq ft of modern, high quality, flexible commercial floorspace at the entrance to the Site to accommodate enterprises at a range of scales and provide new job opportunities for existing and new residents and those living nearby; ● Provision of approximately 6,000 sq ft of land for community use, providing a serviced plot with the full flexibility for the local community to decide which type of facility is required; ● Transformation of over 14ha of privately owned agricultural land into publicly accessible areas of open space and woodland, together with new and enhanced opportunities for informal and formal recreation to promote health and wellbeing (as identified in the Village Assessment the areas of informal play could include for a LAP, NEAP, imaginative play and/or youth facilities); ● Provision in excess of 10% Net Environmental Gain as a result of the extensive network of retained and proposed green spaces providing opportunities for an increase in natural habitat and ecological features, including the potential to double the L-Moor Shepreth SSSI that lies to the south-west of the site through consultation with the Wildlife Trust; ● Provision of a new vehicular access road from Frog End to the south, in the form of a priority junction. This would be the main vehicular access to the proposed development and would serve the existing farm; ● The existing northern farm access from Meldreth Road is proposed to be upgraded to a shared pedestrian and cycleway, providing a link to the existing footway network and onward journeys towards Shepreth railway station; ● The existing Moor End Lane footpath from Frog End will be maintained and could provide a secondary point of access. 2.51 The site is under an Option Agreement with M Scott Properties Ltd. The site has market potential and expert residential agency advice has been sought to ensure that the proposal is deliverable.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary 3.1 This representation has been written on behalf of RWS Ltd to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Regulation 18: Issues and Options Consultation 2020. 3.2 These representations have provided general comments to the document subject to consultation and specifically relate to the Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham site that was put forward by RWS Ltd as part of the Call for Sites. These representations support its development as part of the Greater Cambridge direction for growth. 3.3 It is clear that in order to meet the targets for housing, economic progression and net zero carbon, growth will need to be delivered across the range of locations suggested by the Councils’. The Council should therefore look to identify a wide range of sites across the full spectrum of development scales to ensure consistent delivery throughout the Plan period. 3.4 Importantly, Teversham is a settlement that provides a logical and sustainable location for development, benefiting from sustainable travel opportunities and being in very close proximity to the city. Through the submission of the Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham site for development, it is clear that there is an opportunity for sustainable development in the village. The site is available, achievable and deliverable. As such there is a realistic prospect of development coming forward here at an early stage in the Plan period. 3.5 The Councils’ are therefore encouraged to develop their growth strategy to include provision for housing and community/sport facility development in Teversham, and in particular the Land Fulbourn Road, Teversham site, as part of the new Local Plan.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: The Wilbraham River Protection Society is concerned about the effects of the drier climate and the level of water abstraction from the chalk aquifer that feeds the river system on the health of the river and its associated flora and fauna. It maintains that serious consideration should be given to providing alternative/additional sources of public water supply so as to allow the aquifer to recharge and continue to supply the springs that feed the river before embarking on increased levels of population and economic growth.

No uploaded files for public display

There are 2 fundamental questions local government needs to answer satisfactorily if they are to advocate the growth of Greater Cambridge: 1. As things stand growth will create major problems with congestion and deterioration in the quality of life. Can these be overcome? 2. Can growth be achieved that will actually help Cambridge’s hi-tech businesses and staff rather than hinder them, given that this seems to be the objective. As to the first question the answer, at the moment, is a resounding no. The approach seems to be that, “We had to destroy the town in order so save it”. Anyone who actually lives in the area will be well aware that the city is teetering on the edge of chaos as it is. It only took a burst watermain at the Golden Hind to create gridlock for several days. Meanwhile the roads are falling apart in many places and the organisations who claim that massive growth is no problem cannot even sort out these kinds of most basic things. There seems to be a lot of chateau generalship going on. People are baffled that throwing tens of thousands more people and cars into the mix will improve things when we are not coping at the moment. Management by wishful thinking, such as the idea most people will go by bus instead is just not the answer. This could not be better exemplified than by the problems with transport strategy and the Mayor’s decision to overrule the Cambourne busway. His pretext was that the GCP have achieved little with £500m over several years and have not achieved a transport strategy which will remotely solve the problems. For once, he may have a point. It shows that the 5 local authority organisations involved are in dysfunctional disarray. This means there is no hope at all for a workable transport strategy when it would be massively challenging even without this. The problem which seems to have triggered this is the realisation that as soon as the buses reach Adams road the streets would already be far too crowded with cycles for the plan to work. Where I would have sympathy with the GCP is that this is a virtually impossible problem to solve. However, this argument defends completely destroys the argument for growth. Unfortunately, all the attempts to sort out transport in Cambridge have encountered the same problem. As soon as transport hits the narrow and overcrowded streets in Cambridge the plans shatter like a thin glass hitting a stone floor. No doubt the plans looked fine back at the chateau. The approach to growth seems to be to go ahead regardless and to hope to sort out the problems later. As to the second question, one would have to ask why, if it is so easy to provide affordable housing for tech workers, this has not worked despite thousands of new homes being built in recent years. The approach has been to throw a lot of mud at the wall in the hope that some of it would stick. Unfortunately, it hasn’t. More of the same will not work either. The reason is that housing is market driven and the houses have been bought by the people with the most money, such as overseas investors and London investors. The council’s answer to this seems to be to mutter about “thinking about tenure types”. The only solution that might work would be local government building houses and renting them to the workers. Unfortunately, there seems little appetite or feasibility for this, and the houses would be sold off in the medium term under right to buy anyway. Therefore, I believe growth should only take place if the following pre-conditions are met. These need to be backed by cast iron governance, finance, capabilities and legal strength which is an order of magnitude greater than what is on offer at the moment. 1. A unitary authority and development corporation for South Cambs and the City. 2. A feasible, coherent and effective transport strategy for transport infrastructure, governance and operation which will support the planned growth. 3. A mechanism for employing architects and transport planners that have a demonstrable track record of designing the kind of high quality and community friendly developments we can approve of. This combined with a mechanism, such as the council or development corporation taking over the development to ensure it is developed as intended. This also applies to ensuring the rhetoric on cycling and walking etc actually matches the reality. 4. A plan, and the finance, to provide the citywide facilities that the extra population will require including green spaces, leisure facilities, health facilities, education infrastructure etc. This is besides an appropriate level of local facilities in the new settlements. 5. An agreed consultation process with local residents and potential residents. 6. The legal mechanisms and additional expertise to avoid developers gaming the system to maximise profits at the expense of quality. 7. Cast iron guarantees on the level of social housing. 8. A cast iron mechanism to ensure that, besides social housing, the housing is used by the younger tech workers. 9. An undertaking that there will be no agreement to start further development until these requirements are met and the current development is adequately catered for. 10. A plan to ensure that the revenue requirements of growth can be met, such as maintaining roads to a good standard and supporting community facilities and buses etc. 11. Set up the measurement of metrics to measure the improvements for hi-tech workers that are. ostensibly, the objective of all this. Put in place programme management procedures to stop the growth programme if it is not achieving success on this basis. The gross number of houses is not the right measure. 12. All of the above to be delivered in advance of the actual growth. I am not against a reasonable amount of growth, as such, just that it needs to be carried out to maintain the quality of life which is essential for the growth to be a success. If it is so easy to achieve this then the pre-conditions absolutely can and must be carried out first. Unfortunately, the examples of poor growth are far too prevalent. At CB1 poor design has achieved a full-house of banal architecture, air pollution, noise pollution, community problems, high rates of crime and a dog’s breakfast of a transport hub. The local cynicism about developments is, unfortunately, more than justified. To improve on this more than a radical sea change of approach is needed. There needs to be a root and branch re-build of the agencies managing this change before we can even think about starting.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of main themes raised in discussions with a varied group of local representatives discussing the North East Area Action Plan 2019 Throughout the series of meetings, those attending have varied in number and focus. There have been no minutes or summaries circulated, and therefore these themes rely on notes taken and memory. The concept of a balanced, sustainable and attractive community was welcome. Those attending were pleased to see the emphasis on zero carbon in line with City and wider aspirations, and have confirmation that the intention was to avoid adding to traffic on Milton Road. All parties wished to see a full range of on-site facilities including a welcoming social space served by attractive independent outlets. It was important that the new community should engage with existing surrounding communities, so that it would not be seen as exclusive, and should offer ‘social gain’ to the less fortunate adjacent residential areas, e.g. King’s Hedges. 1. Adequacy of school facilities. Whilst there is no clear definition of the target demographic or mix of housing or tenures, it is clear that local Secondary schools are full and under stress. They are also inconvenient, so a strong shared view emerged that there should be on-site secondary school provision with adequate ancillary space as well as primary school (and nursery) provision. 2. Adequacy of medical facilities. Accepting that these are facilities provided by third party (private) CCG entities, there was a strong view that adequate health facilities were required including pharmacy. The example of Trumpington should be followed. A settlement of circa 18,000 people will need more than primary care and at least integrated care centres. There also needs to be enhancement of the citywide facilities which the settlement will make additional demands on, such as Addenbrookes. 3. Permeability of the areas. There was a strong view that presently physical barriers prevent movement into and through both the science park and the eastern side of Milton Road. Therefore, it was vital to open up access points to ensure that free flow could take place. 4. Inward and outward flows. In a linked point there was a strong view that the interchange and outward as well as inward flows of activity and affluence should be facilitated, otherwise this area would persist in being a concentration of wealth and opportunities, not shared by the less privileged adjacent residential areas. 5. Adequacy of provision of open spaces. A widely held view was that in CB1 the provision of green space was completely inadequate. Therefore as well as ‘green arteries’/’a green spine’ running through the area, it was vital that adequate green space should be a requirement. It had been suggested that steps be taken to make the unoccupied area between the railway line and the river a formal country park extension to Milton Country Park, with appropriate access for pedestrians and cyclists. The representative of Milton Country Park also noted that Milton Country Park is full of users most of the time, and so cannot be viewed as an adequate reservoir of green space for the new development. 6. Height of buildings. Those attending had been astonished and dismayed by the suggestion, only arising two meetings ago, that 12-13 storey buildings were being considered in relation to their impact on nearby sensitive areas. Whilst those attending fully understand – even if they do not agree with - the urge to have dense and therefore most likely 4 to 6 storey average building heights, the 12-13 storey idea came out of the blue, was completely alien to Cambridge and could not be explained. A fixed maximum needs to be set, and Eddington offers the worked example of 6-8 storeys, absolute maximum. It was noted that Brookgate are notorious for exploiting any opportunity to go beyond the agreed building height and massing maxima, and it was entirely unclear how they would be restrained. Unfortunately, the country’s mechanisms for ensuring safety in high rise buildings have proved wholly unfit for purpose so this is another area where higher local standards need to be set. Given that higher buildings need more space around them, and cost more, it has not been demonstrated that any increase in height is worth the marginal increase in gross density. Literature on the subject emphasises the criticality of the quality of building, environment and maintenance as heights increase. Given the failures of CB1, with far lower heights than are proposed here, there are doubts the quantum improvement in approach that is required will be achieved. This is particularly so when the same developers and culture pertain. The height of buildings is the issue where local representatives are fundamentally opposed to what is being proposed and we would like to look at how lower height alternatives compare in terms of gross density, costs and quality. The building heights only became obvious very recently. 7. Commitment to biodiversity and high quality landscaping. Whilst various welcome indications were given about the central role of biodiversity, it remained hazy whether what was envisaged could combine increased density with sufficient space and emphasis on enhancing the natural environment. There was a lack of data, and in the case of the Science Park, the risk that densification would destroy the green qualities of this relatively low-density site. The attractiveness of the Science Park should be preserved whilst making it and its facilities more accessible. 8. Vision for the area. A concise expression of what the intended character and target occupancy is urgently required. What is the intended demographic? Where are the occupants of working age expected to work? What is the mix intended to be? 9. Car ownership. Whilst the vision of low car ownership is to be applauded, doubts remain that it will be possible both to respond to the current car ownership needs, and to avoid adjacent residential areas being the reservoir for parking ‘illicit’ cars owned by occupants. The danger is that measures to reduce car use will not be sufficiently thought through, robust or enforced to stand up to human creativity. The idea that not providing parking would reduce car usage at Orchard Park has just resulted in cars being scattered around the development. Adequate electric car charging provision is required from the outset. 10. A new Cultural Centre for Cambridge. So far only the idea of occupants feeling so connected by reliable public transport with the centre of Cambridge that they will readily go there for cultural activity has been explored. This of course relies on a proper range of high quality public transport, not just inadequate bus services. Nor does the proximity of the Guided Bus, which is questionably a positive factor, or the railway station offer the means to take people to where they wish to be. However, it is also important to consider using the creation of this community to be the basis for building a new top quality concert hall and venue for Cambridge that will be larger than anything presently on offer, near to the railway station, and of sufficient size and flexibility to serve as a major regional focus – 2,000 plus seats. 11. Sustainable building. It is essential that buildings achieve the highest eco standards and that adequate emphasis is placed upon water and achieving the Eddington standards of built-in sustainable water use, grey water recycling, SUDS etc. Emphasis on the highest standards of design and sympathetic materials are also regarded as essential. We should be aiming at Passivhouse standards of insulation which require barely any heating and actually pay for themselves in the long term. 12. Social and affordable housing. In order to obtain the widest benefit from the proposed development, there must be a mandatory social and affordable housing content, not diluted/redirected to alternative uses. 13. Finally dealing with the Fen Road Level Crossing. For decades the ‘oubliette’ status of Fen Road north of the railway has spawned a well-known range of social and behavioural issues that spill over dangerously into Chesterton. The level crossing is still a focus for these problems. Closing the level crossing is an objective fervently wished for by many residents. In order to do so, a new bridge and route to Milton Road is required. This new development provides the opportunity to create an adequate bridged link over the railway line between the northern end of Fen Road and Milton Road, and must be seized. This can be combined with relocation of working spaces currently along Cowley Road to a new area bisected by a road running parallel with the A14. 14. Provision of substitute employment space. Current use of the eastern area includes both light industrial and Cambridge’s major bus depot. So long as Cambridge remains wedded to buses, a suitable bus depot will be required. It is unclear what alternative provision is proposed for existing commercial users, or what commitment will be included for additional working space. 15. Shopping Facilities. Everything needs to be done to encourage vibrant independent shops and facilities. This will require affordable rents and the ability for facilities to grow in an organic and flexible manner. Steps may need to be taken to prevent large chains. Providing higher buildings will not in itself provide what is required. 16. Cycling. One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example. The cultural disconnect of so many involved in these developments can be difficult to overcome. Another problem is the lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. There also needs to be consideration of improving cycling routes across Cambridge as there needs to be recognition that the new residents will want to go everywhere in Cambridge, not just to the edge. Although one can look at good examples (Pye Bridge) there are black spots (Newmarket Road Roundabout) and really easy things which are not done (Chesterton Road). The rate of progress is just not fast enough and I doubt I will see sufficient improvement in my lifetime. Adequate cycle parking provision is required from the outset. 17. Culture of Development. We are very encouraged by the approach of some of the planners who advocate the ideas of people such as Jan Gehl. However, so much of the culture around local developments does not match the continental examples which are held up as exemplars. It is difficult to see how stakeholders such as Brookgate will ever achieve what is required. Another problem is that although money can be found for capital there is no mechanism for providing sufficient revenue to support things such as bus services and social facilities. Until someone can find a solution examples from the continent, where this is not a problem, are not going to help. 18. Communities. Developing successful communities needs to be a top priority and needs to be given a great deal of thought. Certainly, providing the right facilities and a people centric environment is a start. Thought also needs to be given to how different demographics will live together, as has so lamentably failed at CB1. Marmalade Lane is an example of an alternative approach that much can be learnt from, although it may not work wholesale for everyone. 19. Noise. There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem or emphasis on any kinds of noise barriers. As the development is right next to the A14, which is being enhanced to take more traffic, this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution we can see is having noise barriers which really work without impacting other areas. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started. 20. Safety. If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. This will not be just about design but resources to deal with any issues that arise. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard". 21. Sense of Identity and Place. There is nothing so far to indicate that there will be anything about the design which provides a sense of identity which is unique, let alone anything identifiable with Cambridge and the local environment. Many new developments are bland and soulless and could be from any new development in Europe. Archetypal square boxes with a lot of steel, glass and concrete abound. The development has got off to a flying start in soulless architecture with the hotel and offices outside Cambridge North. 22. Impact on Citywide Facilities. A development of this size, on top of all the other new developments both built and planned, will make large demands on the citywide facilities. These would include the hospitals, education, arts facilities, night life, social services and local government. It is not clear how these will be expanded to avoid overcrowding, or even where there is space to do so. There don’t appear to be any plans for the developers to contribute to anything outside the actual development and local government has no money. 23. Housing for Local Workers. It is commendable that there is an ambition to provide housing for local workers. However, it is not clear what measures are possible to stop developers actively promoting housing to buy to leave investors and commuters attracted by the nearby station. Even if they don’t promote this then simple market forces may have the same outcome. The idea of tied housing is worth considering but it fell into disrepute in the past because it shifted the balance of power towards employers. 24. Implementation. There is a need to ensure that the balance of power lies with the planners and not the developers or we will have the familiar pattern of poor architecture (The Marque), facilities delivered decades after the development (Cambourne) and heights that creep up with soulless developments (CB1). There needs to be a quantum leap in the legal and governance framework at the outset to avoid this. There also need to be resources and capabilities kept in reserve to rectify any design issues that become apparent later. 25. Local Involvement. Local representatives expressed a view that the Science Park and the development are, and will be, a citadel of affluence surrounded by some of the less affluent local wards. The lack of opportunities for local young people was a particular concern. Things that could be done to address this could include upgrading nearby facilities, increasing permeability and providing career pathways for young local people to gain employment in the development, and building on the proximity of the Regional College. J. Latham, W. Blythe, M. Bond and A. Milbourn 22.10.2019

No uploaded files for public display

PARK AND RIDE Dear xx Thanks for your email. Your views have been shared with and noted by the project team. I would be happy to set up a conversation, should you wish to discuss further. Kind regards xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 19 February 2020 10:56 To: xx Cc: Greater Cambridge Partnership; Local Plan Subject: RE: Park & Ride -- Best Location Please see my comments in CAPS within your text -- regards -- xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 18 February 2020 16:04 To: xx Cc: Greater Cambridge Partnership; Local Plan Subject: FW: Park & Ride -- Best Location Dear xx, Thanks for your email. The objectives of the Cambourne to Cambridge public transport scheme are to address resulting transport pressures in response to development commitments in the Local Plan and to tackle worsening congestion on roads approaching the city. --- WE ALL KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAM MOST LIVING WITH IT EVERY DAY GOING ANYWHERE FROM THE WEST OF CAMBRIDGE CITY!! As you're aware the current Madingley P&R site has reached capacity despite its location in the heart of growing congestion at peak times. The recommended Scotland Farm site would be accessible by foot or bicycle from surrounding local villages, such as Hardwick and Dry Drayton, -- HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN THESE TWO POPULATION PLACES -V- THE SOON TO BE RESIDENTS OF CAMBOURNE, WEST CAMBOURNE, BOURN AIRFIELD ALL ONLY 3.75 MILES TO THE WEST -- LIKELY TO BE AROUND 11,000 HOUSES SO SAY 20,000 VEHICLES & MAYBE 40,000 PERSONS!! but primarily aims to catch traffic travelling in from further out in advance of building congestion on the A1303. -- WHY -- IS IT NOT BETTER TO GET THEM ALL INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT BEFORE THEY EVER GET INTO THEIR CARS? New high quality public transport services [IN ABOUT 20 YEARS TIME --- WHAT TWIXT THEN AND NOW!!??] will provide direct access to key destinations across the city for residents in locations along the route, such as Cambourne and Bourn Airfield. SO WHY NOT START ALL TO BE ABLE TO "GET INTO/ONTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT RIGHT THERE"? The Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet A428 improvements form part of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. There are no current proposals for changes to the A428 east of Caxton Gibbet. EXACTLY -- SO THE 1 HOUR DELAYS ON MADDINGLY HILL WILL CONTINUE AND AS SOON AS THE TWO LANE A.428 [DROP DOWN THE BACK (NORTH) OF MADDINGLEY HILL TO JOIN WITH THE A.14] IS COMPLETED A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT CAN NOT NOW EFFECTIVELY USE MADDINGLEY HILL, WILL DIVERT TO THE NEW 2 LANE ROAD AND ENTER THE CITY VIA THE HISTON ROUNDABOUT SO SIMPLY SHIFT THE BURDEN OF TRAFFIC (AND ITS VERY SLOW MOVEMENT INTO ALL PARTS OF THE CITY) EASTWARDS. With regard to coordination across other transport projects, , the GCP is coordinating with the CPCA to ensure that when the CAM scheme opens, (planned for 2025) regional routes can run metro-style vehicles and enter tunnels running beneath the city centre. The GCP also welcomes plans for East West Rail, which has the potential to transform journeys between Oxford and Cambridge [WITH A STATION AT CAMBOURNE -- SO WY NOT DOUBLE IT WITH A PARK & RIDE IN THAT SAME LOCATION?] and will support further ambitious growth – including thousands more homes across the region. The Cambourne to Cambridge public transport scheme will eventually work with the new line to give thousands of passengers fast and reliable onward journeys from Cambourne station. It is clear that any station at Cambourne would be south of Cambourne [CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOT BEEN READING OR LISTENING TO YOUR OWN PARTIES IN SCDC AND THE CITY - WHO ALL SAY IT SHOULD BE NORTH!!] and that the route would proceed to South Cambridge but a preferred route with final station locations is not yet agreed. In the city centre, GCP’s City Access project is seeking to introduce measures to free up road space to run better public transport services. A Citizen's Assembly was convened in 2019 to provide an opportunity for public representatives to discuss issues around local congestion, air quality and public transport and make recommendations for action. You can find out more here [I KNOW ALL BOUTH THAT AS I WAS AN ATENDEE AND REGARD THE REPORT AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY AND TOTALLY UNREPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT I WITNESSED AND OF WHICH I WAS A PART] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatercambridge.org.uk%2Fcity-access%2Fgreater-cambridge-citizens-assembly&data=01%7C01%7Cjo.baker%40mottmac.com%7C357fe7c976ba416ba7e708d7b3bdee51%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0&sdata=iWuYvOqWS2gs%2FmCX2CaDZ2NHgJWnlOAv%2BONEmiYz2xI%3D&reserved=0 and the Assembly's recommendations will be presented to the GCP's Executive Board for consideration with regard to the shaping of future policy on 19th February. YOU WILL BE AWARE THAT THE PART RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF "CAMBOURNE TO CAMBRIDGE" HAS BEEN CANCELLED --- BECAUSE THERE IS SEEN TO BE "NO JOINED UP THINKING" BY ALL THOSE WHO WERE TO PRESENT "AN ANSWER" TO THE VERY PROBLEM ABOUT WHICH I AM IN TOUCH WITH YOU!!!! AT LAST PERHAPS SOMEONE HAS WOKEN UP TO THE FACT THAT "JOINED UP THINKING" ON ALL THESE COMPLEX MATTERS IS ESSENTIAL! I hope this provides some further reassurance of consideration and coordination across projects. IT DOES NOTHING TO LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT ANYONE IN AUTHORITY IS DEALING WITH THESE THINGS SENSIBLY -- LAST NIGHT'S DO AT THE CORN EXCAHNGE WAS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COMPLETE ABROGATION OF DUTY BY THOSE WHO SHOULD BE THINKING AND ACTING IN A TOTALLY PROFESSIONAL WAY (AS DID THE VICTORIANS) -- NOT "CONVERSING" TO PRETEND THAT ALL VIEWS HELD BY ALL PARTIES CAN BE ACCOMODATED IN THE NEW LOCAL PLAN -- ONLY REQUIRED BECAUSE THOSE DEALING WITH THE LAST ONE DID SUCH AN APPALLING JOB. Kind regards - xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 11 February 2020 09:29 To: Greater Cambridge Partnership Cc: xx Subject: RE: Park & Ride -- Best Location Dear xx I wrote to xx, under another heading and following yet another "consultation request" to which no one will pay any attention but to which we must all reply else we are told "we did not reply so can 't be concerned"! Rather than repeat most of the same please find a copy attached -- I do so hope that someone somewhere is really listening to what is happening NOW and not basing (bad) decisions on out of date material and facts?! Regards -- xx -----Original Message----- From: Greater Cambridge Partnership Sent: 28 August 2019 16:29 To: xx Cc: xx Subject: RE: Park & Ride -- Best Location Dear xx Thank you for your email dated 13th August. The primary objective of the Cambourne to Cambridge project is to connect communities to the West of Cambridge to the City, and to support growth, as well as reducing traffic on the A1303. Representatives from both Whippet and Stagecoach East, including Managing Director, xx, contributed to stakeholder workshops in summer and autumn 2017, and early 2018 to discuss Park & Ride locations. At the time the Stagecoach preference was for a more central location to reduce operational costs and running times. This link will take you to the document published on our website following that workshop. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcitydeal-live.storage.googleapis.com%2Fupload%2Fwww.greatercambridge.org.uk%2Ftransport%2Ftransport-projects%2FAppendix%2520B2.pdf&data=01%7C01%7CJo.Baker%40mottmac.com%7C6481b8623fdc4a81d2a308d72bbca7b9%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0&sdata=gjvQM36h%2FlDskuK5UHCWrjLSlDJHo4PHlzz%2Fn2JyXVE%3D&reserved=0 Proposed scheme design facilitates residents living in closer proximity to the route in accessing stops and using bus services. Residents in surrounding villages off the A428, including those in Bourn Airfield further from the route, will also be key beneficiaries and it's in these areas that there is a particular need to offer easier P&R access and avoid reverse commuting. Proposed P&R locations prioritise access for key local beneficiaries, and this is equally as important as catching traffic travelling in from further out in advance of building congestion on the A1303. I hope this reply is helpful Best wishes xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 13 August 2019 17:59 To: Greater Cambridge Partnership Cc: xx Subject: RE: Park & Ride -- Best Location Dear xx 1. Please may I see the result of that consultation with the bus companies? Why would those parties mind where the site is located so long as they are getting all the business surely the more miles the better so far as they are concerned? 2. MUCH more importantly:- -- How many people has it been assessed are going to "reverse commute" out of Cambridge (especially those to the North and east of the main city) every day x 2 in order to go into and out of Cambridge & its environs? Surely no-one is suggesting that anyone will go from Cambridge to Scotland farm in order to go on to Cambourne Etc as an alternative? If they are going to do that they will do exactly the same distance from wherever they start. Versus -- Those living in Cambourne (3,500 houses) -- West Cambourne (2,500 houses maybe more) -- Papworth (maybe 4,000 houses) -- Bourn Airfield (said to be 2,500 houses maybe more) -- so a minimum of 12,500 houses -- perhaps 35,000 working age people in total -- say 1/2 (likely an over estimate go to London or work locally) -- so 6,250 houses/19,000 people commuting eastwards. What number of busses will that fill all heading from their homes - so no need to get into cars at all if the P & R is sited near to where they dwell!? -- Additionally does anyone really believe that if someone gets into his car to go "towards Cambridge" they are (especially on a pouring wet day or at night going to go 1/3 maybe less of their journey to their destination to change to a cold (or violently hot) bus for the remainder of their journey? I look forward to receiving:- A. The full detail of the Bus company consultation B. The numerical details of all thinking & consultations regarding numbers from all directions Etc Regards – xx -----Original Message----- From: Greater Cambridge Partnership Sent: 13 August 2019 15:58 To: xx Cc: xx Subject: RE: Park & Ride Dear xx Thank you for your email and apologies for the slight delay in responding. On purely environmental grounds, and in summer 2017 when the report was prepared, the North Cambourne site performed well as it is outside the Green Belt. The scheme aims to encourage people to leave cars at home, but for the existing and growing local communities using the Park and Ride, in transport terms a North Cambourne site is located further away from Cambridge. This means that the operational costs of park and ride services would be increased and there would be risk that drivers would travel outwards to Cambourne to board Park and Ride services. Consultation with bus operators has stressed the need for a relatively central Park and Ride location and this has influenced the selection of Scotland Farm and Waterworks. An Outline Business Case presenting recommendations for a full end to end route and a preferred site for a new Park & Ride location will be presented to the GCP Executive Board for decision in the Autumn. Best wishes xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 12 August 2019 17:36 To: Greater Cambridge Partnership Cc: xx Subject: RE: Park & Ride Importance: High xx I have just returned from a week in Devon and am MOST surprised to find I STILL have NO substantive reply (only an auto-acknowledgement) to my contact as long ago as 15.06.19. Before I left I shared my contact with a specialist in Planning and Highway matters and he has replied (regarding my statement below) -- "I think your ‘missive’ is entirely correct. It directly identifies a material failing in process. The failing is very clear on pages 34-36 of the document that was attached to xx email. At Table 4 of the document you can see that the North Cambourne site has the equal highest score of all. Then in section 4.5.2 you see some narrative on options 6 and 7 referring to them collectively as the ‘options to the west’. The error is contained in the final sentence of that narrative where it says that site 6 is included in the Local Plan but site 7 is not. Whilst that is true for the wider development it is not true in terms of the provision of a P&R as NEITHER site at that stage was identified for that purpose i.e. they both stood outside of the emerging Local Plan. The effect of that flawed judgement is then read in paragraph 4.6, where site 6 is included in the recommendations and site 7 is not -- when Site 6 was taken out of the Bourn Airfield scheme then clearly BOTH BEST sites were removed" As I have said before WHY was that so and WHY is the only remaining BEST SITE not even in the mix at this stage -- especially as the Mayor's Metro scheme (which has just received more funding) is, wholly sensibly, due to pick up Cambourne so the P & R at Site 7 could serve TWO purposes -- Bus & Metro Parking? PLEASE may I have a full reply? -- xx -----Original Message----- From: xx Sent: 01 August 2019 12:40 To: xx Subject: Re: Park & Ride Dear xx Please may I have an early (and full) answer to this contact of mine on 24th July? - Thanks — xx On 24 Jul 2019, at 18:24, xx wrote: > Thanks xx -- Indeed the 2017 VERY full appraisal made Bourn Airfield (BAD) [No'6] second only to North of Cambourne [No'7] -- but No' 6 was chosen because of the likely/possible bus route via BAD; otherwise the N of Cambourne site [No' 7] was placed "first". > During the planning of BAD the Park & Ride (and a number of other promised features) have disappeared -- SO -- PLEASE Why has the N of Cambourne site (that is clearly nearer to the majority of people in the area than any other location and further from Cambridge) not now again the first choice but rather dropped out of the equation all together? > Kind regards -- xx > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greater Cambridge Partnership > Sent: 17 July 2019 14:29 > To: xx > Subject: RE: Park & Ride > > Dear xx, > Thank you for your query around how the options for a new Park & Ride site were selected and please accept our sincere apologies again for the delay in responding. > > We’re proposing that a reliable, accessible and environmentally-friendly public transport link, with cycling and walking provision, will encourage Bourn and Cambourne residents to use the bus, or even to cycle, and leave cars at home. The P&R would attract commuters coming in from further west, seeking to avoid the traffic on the A1303. > > The existing Madingley Road Park & Ride is due to reach capacity by 2022. New Park & Ride provision is needed as the area continues to grow and attract more businesses. > > Following concerns raised by the project's Local Liaison Forum (LLF) > and other stakeholders, the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive > Board instructed GCP in 2017 to undertake a full review of Park and > Ride options. This was undertaken during the second half of 2017 in > the run up to the End of Stage Report which informed the 2017 Public > Consultation. The assessment of a range of Park and Ride options is > documented in an Appendix M to the End of Stage Report, and was > informed by workshops with LLF members and other st

No uploaded files for public display

The following four questions are, I believe, essential to address in the next iteration of the local plan. Please confirm that you intended to ensure these concerns are adequately met during the next stage of development: Questions for the local plan development team 1.0 The ‘first conversation’ document, presentation and website make no mention of the 48,000 homes to be built between West Cambridge and Cambourne if the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway is approved. These potential homes are not part of the current plan, would mostly be built or completed during the period of the plan under consideration, and have not been consulted on. No proper conclusions can be drawn as to the scope and appropriateness of the next plan without considering them. Will the planning officers now make available full projections of the total homes, either mandated by government or planned in the expressway scheme, so that the projected minimum of new housing stock can be clearly established and used to form balanced judgements about whether any further increase is desirable or viable? 2.0 The ‘first conversation’, as with most discussions about development, often conflates growth and prosperity, treating them as synonymous. These are, in practice, completely different and often divergent objectives. For example, a plan for growth that resulted in water and electricity rationing, further congestion, increasing pollution, more crowded pavements, and over-subscribed schools and surgeries would clearly damage the health and detract from the prosperity of existing citizens. Will the planning officers commit to making the distinction clear in future documents and consultations, so that the pros and cons of any scheme can be clearly understood? 3.0 Any worthwhile plan would state clearly the constraints under which it is formulated. In the consultation documents the constraints are only obliquely identified, and often as though they were benefits that could be automatically derived, largely ignoring the absence of any funds for their mitigation let alone improvement. Some of them are partially clarified in the accompanying document ‘Sustainability Appraisal Findings’, and a few are quantified in the ‘Summary of requirements for applications in Cambridge’. Even there however no cumulative targets are set. For the plan and consultation to be useful, it is critical that all constraints are clearly identified as such, and objectively quantified so that acceptable thresholds and target levels can be discussed and agreed. Water provides a useful example. To understand where we are now and make decisions about the future we need to have carefully identified the groundwater level below which chalk streams and aquifers no longer flow freely, the average volume of water that can be extracted before that level is reached, any independent and less constrained sources of water that can be drawn on, and current supply requirement. This permits calculation of the headroom available to supply new housing stock without damage to habitats or water rationing. It also makes transparent the volume of fresh supplies that must be secured for increases beyond that point. The same reasoning, using real data, needs to be applied to all other constraints including electricity supply, public transport, congestion, pollution, biodiversity and a host of others. Where necessary proxy or constructed measures must be applied so that assessment is possible. For climate change the councils have declared a carbon emergency and this requires that interim targets are set, not just to achieve net zero emissions well before the government backstop of 2050, but to meet the scientifically agreed minimum reduction of 50% by 2030. Any measures must surely include the embedded carbon in building material and emitted during construction if it is to be meaningful. Will the planning officers now commit to identifying and quantifying all relevant constraints, along with current levels and any critical thresholds, so that rational judgements about targets can be agreed with citizens? Further will they agree, where limits are exceeded, to go beyond noting that possibility but identify the required changes or sources of funding to increase supply or mitigate negative outcomes before submitting the plan for approval? 4.0 The objectives and constraints of the plan are adjustments, or attributes, of a larger system. As with all systems there are reinforcing and balancing loops that maintain the current dynamic equilibrium. Any proposal to introduce change to the system inevitably generates multiple adjustments that destabilise, and risk destroying, the current equilibrium. Unintended consequences and secondary effects usually result. For instance, to pursue the water example, in our constrained system over-extraction not only dries up water courses, destroying unique habitats, but lowers the water table, killing trees and increasing demand for water for agricultural and horticultural use. Increased demand leads to further extraction for crop health and thus a reinforcing loop leading to water rationing, reduced agricultural output, and increased carbon emissions from drying soil and peat. The result has negative consequences for all four of the ‘big themes’. There are multiple similar feedback loops in the larger system, most of them interacting with each other. To make good decisions we need to understand these connections and the consequences of changing them. Failure to provide that information can potentially mislead the public. Will the planning officers now commit to producing and publishing a map of the relevant system that shows all the connections and the reinforcing and balancing loops so that citizens may use this to help make rational decisions about their future? Thank you for your attention, for your painstaking work, and for your help in clarifying the issues we all face as development continues.

No uploaded files for public display

Sustainable Development and Where to Build: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. While we are not within the Greater Cambridge area, we are immediately adjacent to it. Gamlingay in South Cambridgeshire is our nearest large village, with basic shops, post office, chemist and doctors’ surgery. Meanwhile Cambridge is important to us for shopping and entertainment and in many cases for employment and schools. We are also on a main route between Gamlingay and Cambridge and therefore experience high levels of rush hour traffic. Your plan will therefore affect us seriously. Sustainable development We note your objective “to ensure sustainable development” and note also your aim of “net zero carbon”. While of course we support both these aims, we would like to point out that any increase in population and hence increase in house building (you propose 2900 new homes per year) will certainly mean increased carbon emission– contrary to your avowed objective – even before we factor in the heating, general living and travel requirements of these extra inhabitants. This extra carbon emission should not be offset by the questionable process of paying off other countries to plant more trees. Where to build? Densification of existing urban areas: If new building must take place, then this is the approach most favoured by this parish council, as it concentrates new homes in the areas where facilities already exist to cope with them and where there is already a functioning public transport system. It also uses brownfield sites, thus reducing environmental devastation. And by concentrating on an existing centre of population, it is less likely to have a negative impact on surrounding villages and parishes Cambridge Airport: We also approve of development at Cambridge Airport, as this is a brownfield site, with similar advantages to the example above. Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt: We do not approve of any development in the Green Belt. This is contrary to your own policy of preserving green spaces and greenfield sites. New settlements: We are absolutely opposed to the creation of new settlements. These use greenfield sites, require a completely new transport system and generally have a devastating effect on neighbouring parishes. The development of Cambourne, for example, led to greatly increased traffic on the A428 with even bigger rush hour jams into Cambridge, the reorganisation of the surrounding road system and the degradation and eventual disappearance of our bus service, as resources were redirected to Cambourne. A further unforeseen consequence was the fact that the station carpark at St Neots would be full to overflowing with commuters from Cambourne to London. This is just one example of how a new settlement can have a negative effect on older surrounding villages. Public transport corridors: We are opposed to any development which uses greenfield sites and erodes the countryside. This would also lead to even greater congestion on the roads into Cambridge. Improving the Green Space network: We applaud your intention of improving the green space network. Surely a start would be to preserve the existing countryside and to prohibit building on greenfield sites. Unfortunately it is cheaper to develop greenfield sites, so incentive must be provided to persuade developers to prioritise brownfield sites. Public Transport: Clearly if the net zero carbon objective is even to be approached, there needs to be a much greater investment in public transport. This is where communities like ours suffer: we used to have a weekday bus service to Cambridge, but it was withdrawn completely some years ago. We realise that this may be outside your remit, as being properly the responsibility of the County Council. However it seems to us that no development should be permitted anywhere, without a regular, frequent and viable public transport system. Failing this all these green commitments are just so many empty words.

No uploaded files for public display

I live in south Cambridge on the Accordia estate, with Hobsons Conduit marking a boundary with a semi-rural field, allotments and Clare Wood. I experience almost daily the congestion and pollution of the city centre and Trumpington Road. I wish to take part in the First Conversation on the Local Plan, but not within the channel of the consultative questionnaire. Cambridge is beset with the ill effects of runaway economic growth and the poorly planned development in and around the city. The high level of growth the city has experienced has increased inequality inordinately and pushed house prices and rents beyond the means of poor and moderately paid inhabitants. The contrast between the wealth and incomes of very highly paid professionals in the ‘knowledge’ sector and that of people on ‘austerity’ state benefits is divisive and demeaning. Ordinary people are being driven out of the city and forced to commute back, mostly in their cars. The local roads are filled beyond their capacity with traffic; buses are crowded out; and busy roads become modern sewers, teeming with polluting particles. The simple fact is that the city is being overwhelmed and choked at present levels of growth. Yet the two local authorities – the City Council and South Cambridgeshire – are under intense pressure to accede to a huge increase in growth. Central government starves them of resources, dictates planning and other policies, and demands that they pursue yet more growth. The makeshift ‘pop up’ devolution authority – comprising an elected Mayor and Combined Authority – has set its sights on a “higher level of ambition for economic growth and development” up to 2050, well beyond that currently planned. Economic output is to double over the next 25 years, an aim which has been agreed with the Government and which is likely to be exceeded. This aim is unsustainable. It makes nonsense of the City’s declaration of a climate emergency. It makes nonsense of its policies to reach net zero emissions. It makes nonsense of wider ambitions to balance investment and growth between the south and north of the United Kingdom. Locally it will be disproportionately located in “six key districts” in Cambridge which collectively account for 63% of all jobs within the Cambridge urban area, and 40% of all jobs within Greater Cambridge. While “The first conversation” Local Plan consultation document does not express a preference for location of the associated housing development, it is clear that there will be great pressure to locate it as close as possible to these areas of economic growth. Here and now, the “six key districts” are struggling with the inability to date to reduce private vehicle traffic and peak congestion levels - and to provide adequate public transport; one evidence of the severe disconnect within our system between land use and transport planning. The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s peak traffic reduction target, which was 10 per cent below 2011 levels, is now nearly 25 per cent below current levels to provide the conditions essential for a reliable and frequent bus service, which is a key part of the public transport package. The currently approved Local Plans for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council already provide for growth up to 2031 of 33,500 homes, and 22,100 net additional jobs in Cambridge City. South Cambridgeshire’s Local Plan adds significantly to the growth in jobs. Essential infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with, let alone manage this growth effectively – with traffic congestion at peak times having already increased by 15 per cent approximately since 2011, now requiring an overall reduction of one quarter to meet the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s congestion reduction target. Then there is housing. The authorities have been warned by the so-called Independent Economic Commission, set up by the Combined Authority, that “the levels of planned housing are insufficiently high to accommodate the existing, let alone anticipated growth in the economy … We believe the accumulated housing deficit in Cambridge and Peterborough is so acute that the local authorities should re-examine their assessments of housing need, setting higher numbers, which at least reflect under-delivery.” Further housing provision must be affordable in real terms, with a strong element of social housing, or the divisions in the society of Cambridge and its surrounds will become even more acute. The infrastructure needs are also immense – to quote the Economic Review, “A package of transport and other infrastructure projects to alleviate the growing pains of Greater Cambridge should be considered the single most important infrastructure priority facing the Combined authority in the short to medium term.” These needs must not be allowed to override the special character of Cambridge. Dispersal of housing development to significant clusters to conserve Cambridge’s “special character” and the Green Belt separation between Cambridge and its “necklace of villages”, are fundamental to the current adopted Local Plan - following major releases of land from the Green Belt in the 2006 Local Plan in the “Southern Fringe”, which are reaching fruition now. To date the City Council has resisted further releases of land from the Green Belt for development. Further “agglomeration” associated with growth represents a real threat to citizens’ enjoyment of the city and the area. The First Conversation’s conclusions and recommendations on health, well-being, and social inclusion, biodiversity, education and skills do not proceed beyond generalities and pieties. There are no conclusions or recommendations on the environment or climate change. And yet central Government, the Combined Authority, the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the City and south Cambridgeshire councils among other ‘constituent’ local authorities, are intent on an utterly unrealistic and damaging over-reach in plans for the future. It appears that as far as the Combined Authority and its Independent Economic Commission are concerned, the high level and form of economic growth and development in and around Cambridge it envisages, are already a done deal – at the outset of the process to review and renew the 2017 – 2040 Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and before the public have had our say. In practice, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, as constituent members of the Combined Authority, seem to be already signed up to the higher level of economic growth and development as the basis for our joint Local Plan. The First Conversation says that they have committed to a goal of doubling the total economic output of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area over 25 years. While this high level of economic growth and its associated housing growth might be one proposition, alternative futures with lower levels of growth must also be assessed before this keystone to the new Local Plan is put in place. Local citizens need climate change and environmental impact assessments of the options with which to inform our choice. The sustainability assessment framework proposed for the various stages of the Local Plan’s development appears at first sight to be significantly deficient. Impact assessments at a high level of whole growth options are essential but are not proposed. I wish to express considerable concern at the implications for Greater Cambridge in general of the “higher level of economic growth and development” which the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority plans for up to 2050; and at the potential incompatibility between this growth level and: the Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel’s call to cut global emissions in half by 2030 to have a chance of keeping global heating within safe limits. As stated above, the City and South Cambridgeshire local authorities do not have the resources or powers to withstand central Government. Yet they are elected to govern in the interests of their local populations and to represent those interests where necessary. I believe that they should accept this democratic responsibility and urge them to do so. The consultation process and questionnaire set out in the First Conversation documentation is not sufficient to test the views of the public and simply seeks to channel responses into unformed generality. There is no basis on which to judge what level of growth the public would prefer, and yet their experience of the consequences of present growth makes them an ‘expert’ constituency. The two authorities must act to properly safeguard the quality of life and wellbeing of the people they represent and deepen the consultation underway in preparation for their joint Local Plan to ensure that we have an informed local population able to judge the options of lower and sustainable growth aims for which they could negotiate with Government and the Combined Authority with the support of an informed local population.

No uploaded files for public display

Climate change – “net zero carbon” – It seems impossible to achieve a net zero carbon in an area with 27.5% projected population growth. Solution – arrest the continued assumption of “Growth-Growth-Growth”

No uploaded files for public display

Just a line to say as a Cambourne resident we may need to think about further improving our sporting facilities. With the Railway station / Busway emerging as key opportunities to develop both Great Places and Social Inclusion. The current Football provision is in need of review as many of our young people represent neighbouring Clubs but train on the 3G in our Town. Wellbeing is high on all political agendas and Sport has a wonderful mechanism to bring those of all backgrounds together. New facilities can embrace climate change too, rainwater harvesting is a must for any NEW building planned for Cambourne in the future. Always happy to discuss as required, but my fear is that the Town will continue to grow with sporting facilities reflecting a traditional village lifestyle (for which we are very grateful but may need to keep ahead of the curve)

No uploaded files for public display

I fully support Cambridge Cycle Campaigns positions on the local plan. Please take careful consideration of the contributions from Camcycle and include them in ongoing development on the Local Plan. Development sites must support the sustainable transport goals of shifting the vast majority of everyday travel out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. The Local Plan, in every aspect, needs to be enabling and encouraging a full-scale transition away from private car dependency and towards walking, cycling and public transport. Every development must be fully permeable with safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling routes. Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs.  Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward.  Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process.  The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

No uploaded files for public display

I'm emailing with comments - having been to a consultation meeting. I'm intelligent and have middling IT skills, but I found navigating the documents/trying to answer on-line was v off-putting. My top concern is environmental: solar panels, high standard eco building, tree planting, new green spaces, better cycling infrastructure. County wide, I'd like wide cycle routes built away from roads where possible. In the future, more people will be using Ebikes which will allow them to commute greater distances from villages IF there are safe routes. Housing: I'd like to see the introduction of bye laws restricting new build houses to local workers, and people who don't yet have a home. I believe that areas of Cornwall and Exmoor have taken action to restrict second home/by-to-let buyers. We need to help young people and lower paid workers to get homes, and to restrict air B&B and student accommodation which doesn't contribute to council tax/local facilities. In that vein,I would introduce a tourist tax of, say, £1 per person per night, similar to that in Edinburgh. Tourism is becoming unsustainable in Cambridge centre. I'd like to see a limit on group size to say no more than 20 in a group. I recently saw a group of 50 totally blocking Bene't Street, the entrance to the Eagle, the pavement and spilling dangerously onto the road. The (non local) guide was talking to them about the Cavendish (well,he called it the Rutherford...) Groups this size are not safe. Can we also introduce a drop-off coach charge, to help pay for facilities like toilets? I applaud the new parks built by the hospital. Any new building must have allotments, public orchards and varied wildlife areas. As a model for housing, I'd like to see more housing co-ops like the excellent on in Marmalade Lane/Orchard Park. We should aim to create mixed housing, bringing families, single people, disabled, old and young together to combat loneliness. Perhaps even a per person tariff on visitors arriving by coach, similar to the entry charge to Venice (but not levied on train arrivals, or park-and-ride visitors) We need more electric buses so that people have a real alternative to driving. I'd like to see a congestion charge for Cambridge city to reduce the serious air pollution. I've met several adults who have moved to central Cambridge and developed asthma for the first time in their lives. Money from congestion charge could be used to provide free park and ride buses/parking. There has been a pleasing and natural transition to local shopping; I'd like to see a curb put on any new, big out of town supermarkets. Car free housing areas - like that at Eddington and proposed for Waterbeach - should be actively pursued. I'm v pleased about the chisolm Trail, and would like to see that extended so that there is a spur going all the way to Ely. And also for a new park with swimming beach to be created by Snaky Path at Romsey, using part of the old cement pits, while leaving some for wildlife.

No uploaded files for public display

Thank you for the presentation by Katie Thornburrow. Just a few comments from notes I made during the meeting: How difficult consensus will be with so many differing (often irrelevant) priorities expressed in one room. On the whole Cambridge has done well but the difficult issues have never been so serious. A start on a viable solution to the traffic problem, that combats poor air quality and unnecessary CO2 emissions, is essential NOW and must be continued in parallel with any balanced provision of workplaces and housing. Combatting climate change must be given priority now and at every stage of every development. Opportunities to provide photovoltaic panels and especially slate substitute roofing systems that generate electricity should be provided. With more information and knowledge about the nature, quality and life of systems I would hope that current householders might add to the provision. In some parts of the world the pay back starts within two years. I suspect that at the meeting I attended in Romsey, most people present came from homes built around 1900 that can not realistically be insulated to the extent that heating is not required and zero carbon is produced. Very warm clothing will be the only option if we don’t focus on developing new systems and reliable heat storage facilities. People should not be misled about this with talk of double glazing and providing heat pumps instead of gas boilers. However there are terraces that could be insulated externally with considerable efficiency if the retention of brickwork was not a priority in the minds of so many. We might have to consider this if we don’t take climate change seriously. Of course appropriate trees should be planted wherever possible, hard surfaces reduced and other green surfaces considered, even for parking. I believe that we have to tunnel under the centre of Cambridge to achieve a realistic useful transport system. A Metrobus (eg Mexico City) could link with the underground system. It requires space that is not available in the centre but is available further out. Generally I support the recent proposal by . We had a great opportunity to make a start on improving transport and reducing car traffic so hopefully there is still some money left. I trust that good transport links will be provided in conjunction with the Wing development. Cambridge North station is a good start. The gravel pits at the end of Mill Road seem to be a wasted resource and I would love to see sustainable swimming enabled here, perhaps from a floating raft, while maintaining sufficient “wild” areas for birds etc. I have only gained access once when the area was opened to the public for a day and even just as a quiet walking area access would be good. I should know more about current ownership etc. I very strongly believe in maintaining the wonderful green walks across and around Cambridge as it expands. The fact that so many spaces are linked is one of our greatest assets . I was surprised to hear (or mishear?) that 22% of employment in Cambridge is in the tourist industry. I find it hard to believe even if this includes all restaurants. I have several other such notes about things I must look up.

No uploaded files for public display

GREATER CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2020 CONSULTATION – Land at Manor Farm and Land South of High Street, Graveley Our client, who is the landowner of several sites in Graveley, has instructed us to make the following comments on their behalf in respect of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation. One of the big themes outlined in the Local Plan Issues and Options 2020 is climate change. Achieving net zero carbon is an important consideration in the preparation of the Local Plan. The sites in Graveley were put forward as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites undertaken in Spring 2019. The sites provide an infill opportunity in Graveley and the homes would be efficiently designed. The sites can accommodate tree planting which will also create biodiversity net gain, another important big theme. The Issues and Options Consultation also identifies wellbeing and social inclusion as another big theme, especially in rural areas where people have limited access to services and transport. Enhancing the vitality of villages is supported by Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the development of the sites in Graveley will enable homes and enhance the setting and spirit of the village through much needed housing providing environmental and social benefits. As set out in the Local Plan Issues and Options, the cost of renting or buying a home in Greater Cambridge is much higher than the national average. If the Local Plan does not make provision for a larger quantity of housing this will be exacerbated. To achieve this, the Council must set itself an ambitious housing target for the plan period. The Government’s Standard Methodology fails to consider changing economic circumstances in its calculations. Considering Greater Cambridge is at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, the UK Innovation Corridor and the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor, all of which will transform the regional economy, it is imperative the Councils plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government. The type of housing provided should be informed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It is also important to note that Paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires councils to identify 10% of their housing need on sites of 1 hectare or less. Land within and adjacent to villages such as Graveley is perfectly suited to meeting this requirement.

No uploaded files for public display

I wish to lodge the following comments to the new joint local plan Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire now referred to as Greater Cambridge Planning. 1. Every existing rural community, (Villages etc.), should undergo a microscopic analysis of what they need to become more sustainable. Example: In Whittlesford one has to travel to Royston, Cambridge, Fulbourn or Saffron Walden to access a proper supermarket. The Co-ops in Sawston and Great Shelford and the Tesco Express in Great Shelford are wholly inadequate and demonstrably so. 2. Matters concerning the Biodiversity Crisis in the U.K. and Climate Change should be given top priority!!! If an application fails in one or two minor aspects of planning but can prove that it will benefit the Biodiversity of South Cambridgeshire and the U.K. significantly it should be approved. We do not have the luxury of refusing applications on these minor points anymore. Take ponds for instance; there are no current geological activities that are creating new ponds in South Cambridgeshire. The only way to increase the number and quality of ponds to rescue the aquatic invertebrate situation is by allowing new development that is coupled with a new pond condition. It is the only option that provides the money to construct new ponds. 3. Whittlesford: All the industrial buildings at the southern end of Hill Farm Road should be taken out of the Green Belt and designated as an Employment Area. At its seasonal peak this site employs over 1000 people!!! The area does not satisfy the strict modern criteria, (N.P.P.F. 2019), for inclusion into the Green Belt in 2020. 4. Re: 3 The same is true regarding the rest of the Green Belt Line in Whittlesford. Thanks to mistakes by decades of strategic planning, we have very few one or two bedroom houses to satisfy the need for single people or first time buyers. All the small houses have been extended leading to this demographic crisis. Where appropriate, the Green Belt line needs to be relaxed here and there and the new land within the development framework restricted to the construction of one and two bedroom houses. The first two rungs on the housing ladder in Whittlesford are missing. There is no such thing in Whittlesford as affordable rent; the law allows Housing Societies to charge 80% of market rent. Renting is ridiculous anyway, it is all dead money with nothing to show for it. Only when house prices crash or interest rates soar will renting be financially prudent. Without the first two rungs on the housing ladder some people are condemned to pay rent all their life; they are trapped!!! 5. Every existing rural community should have adequate 'care home' facilities. There should be no need for close relative to travel 10 or 20 miles to visit a loved one. Equally, every rural community should have its own recycling centre and in the short medium term every rural community should have easy access to a native tree nursery. 6. Development that threatens to seriously affect the environs and flow of the River Cam should be refused. The River Beane in Hertfordshire is just a series of still puddles in the summer. The reason one is given is that there have been so many new houses ( collectively abstracting water) built in Stevenage that the River has dried up. I would be grateful if my comments are taken into account and I look forward to having the opportunity to talk face to face in much much more detail with those who are going to draft the first consultation document.

No uploaded files for public display

Pass a motion at city, district, and county level to: Prioritise Active Travel Prioritise Active Travel Prioritise Active Travel For further information please see the excellent Oxfordshire CC Cllr Bartington motion to do this.

No uploaded files for public display

I request that there is no building on the Green Belt, there should be willage infill rather than new village settlements. Transport network should be in place prior to any new developement. Provision for local doctors surgeries, accomodation for elderly village residents. Climate protection Electric charging points at every home and public building. Adequate parking provision to serve Cambourne Railway station. Safe cycle routes to places of employment. Emmission capture from the new proposed relocation of Milton sewage works. A direct connection South for the A428 at Girton to reduce Rat Run through our villages. West of Cambridge within the Green Belt should be a green network to enchance the regions biodiversity

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: Protect our Natural Cambridgehire Biodiversity Protect the Green Belt Ensure a comprehensive transport plan, include the Girton Interchange

No uploaded files for public display

We act on behalf of Mr Johnson in relation to the following sites which were put forward as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites undertaken in Spring 2019: 1) Land south of Fen Drayton Road, Swavesey for residential development 2) Land at Rose and Crown Road, Swavesey for commercial development 3) Land at Ridgeley Farm, High Street, Fen Drayton, CB24 4SJ for residential development; and 4) Land east of Cambridge Road, Fen Drayton (adjacent to A14) for commercial development. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan will shape how Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire changes over the period to 2040, and possibly beyond. The Issues and Options 2020 Consultation enables the first conversation and explores big themes that will influence how homes, jobs and infrastructure are planned. As set out in the Issues and Options 2020 consultation the cost of renting or buying a home in Greater Cambridge is much higher than the national average. If the Local Plan does not make provision for a larger quantity of housing this will be exacerbated. To achieve this, the Council must set itself an ambitious housing target for the plan period. Greater Cambridge is at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, the UK Innovation Corridor and the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor, all of which will transform the regional economy, it is imperative the Councils plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government. The Local Plan should provide a range of housing sites, both small and large scale to enable flexibility and competition in the market. As set out in paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 small and medium sites make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. This should be alongside larger scale developments such as significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities as set out in paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The land south of Fen Drayton Road, Swavesey is ideally situated as an infill development between the 99 dwellings allowed at appeal (Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/W/17/3172405 Land south of Fen Drayton Road, Swavesey, LPA Ref: S/1027/16/OL) and Swavesey Village College. The site proposes an additional 45 dwellings which reflects the character of the area with access off Fen Drayton Road using the new access approved as part of the allowed appeal. There is a significant demand for a mix of housing within Swavesey given its services and facilities as well as access to Cambridge and Northstowe and this site is ideally situated. The development will provide economic benefits with owners of the dwellings injecting further growth into village life and through the construction of the dwellings alongside additional landscaping which will provide a biodiversity net gain. The Issues and Options 2020 also sets out the success of Greater Cambridge economy which is of national importance and that the local economy requires a range of different sectors to ensure a variety of jobs for local people. It is very important that continuing economic growth is at the heart of the next Local Plan. Paragraph 80 of the NPPF 2019 sets out that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The land at Rose and Crown Road, Swavesey proposed for commercial development is situated on the edge of the village of Swavesey, a larger village with limited employment provision. The development will assist in providing a range of employment opportunities for the village, and surrounding villages and there will be economic benefits through the jobs created and during the construction process. The site is ideally placed in close proximity to the A14 with connections to surrounding towns and villages such as Cambridge. Land at Ridgeley Farm, Fen Drayton currently has agricultural buildings used as a hay shed and corn store with a slurry tank and shed. Redeveloping the site will remove dilapidated agricultural buildings and enhance the setting of the village, the setting of the Conservation Area and Grade II listed buildings abutting the nature reserve along with providing much needed housing. The site will provide economic benefits through the construction jobs created. There is demand for a mix of housing within Fen Drayton given its services and facilities combined with the upgrading to the A14 road network, the site is also well connected to surrounding towns and villages such as Cambridge and Northstowe. With regard to the land east of Cambridge Road, Fen Drayton (adjacent to A14) for commercial development this sits adjacent to the A14. The development of this site will enable economic benefits with the creation of jobs during construction and through businesses operating from the site. There is significant demand for industrial development along the A14 and this site is ideally placed and well connected to surrounding towns and villages such as Cambridge. Given the services and facilities in Swavesey and Fen Drayton these villages are ideally placed to accommodate further growth through housing and commercial development to ensure there are a variety of houses and jobs for local people. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites as well as planning economic growth in close proximity to the villages and along transport corridors. The sites at Land south of Fen Drayton Road, Swavesey for residential development; Land at Rose and Crown Road, Swavesey for commercial development; Land at Ridgeley Farm, High Street, Drayton, CB24 4SJ for residential development and Land east of Cambridge Road, Fen Drayton for commercial development are ideally placed to assist with achieving these aims and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: Given that I’ve run out of time to respond, I just want to stress that you have to stop building new roads and car-focussed out-of-town housing developments, and concentrate on boosting walking, cycling and public transport. Flood defences are obviously crucial too - no more building in flood plains!

No uploaded files for public display

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan will shape how Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire changes over the period to 2040, and possibly beyond. The Issues and Options 2020 Consultation enables the first conversation and explores big themes that will influence how homes, jobs and infrastructure are planned. One of the big themes outlined in the Local Plan Issues and Options 2020 is climate change and achieving net zero carbon is an important consideration in the preparation of the Local Plan. The land at St Peters Street, Caxton was put forward as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites undertaken in Spring 2019 and provides an opportunity to create a well located extension to Caxton with efficiently designed homes. The site can accommodate tree planting which will also create biodiversity net gain another important big theme. The development of Land at St Peters Street, Caxton will enable homes and enhance the setting of the village through much needed housing providing environmental and social benefits. As set out in the Issues and Options 2020 consultation the cost of renting or buying a home in Greater Cambridge is much higher than the national average. If the Local Plan does not make provision for a larger quantity of housing this will be exacerbated. To achieve this, the Council must set itself an ambitious housing target for the plan period. Greater Cambridge is at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, the UK Innovation Corridor and the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor, all of which will transform the regional economy, it is imperative the Councils plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government. The Local Plan should provide a range of housing sites, both small and large scale to enable flexibility and competition in the market. As set out in paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 small and medium sites such as land at St Peters Street, Caxton will make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. There is significant demand for housing within Caxton given its proximity to Cambourne and Cambridge. The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 sets out in paragraph 78 that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a nearby villages. The land at St Peters Street, Caxton is ideally placed in relation to Caxton and the transportation corridors. Caxton’s proximity to Cambourne lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire along with the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc. The terminus of the proposed busway will be located in Cambourne and the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) will be through Cambourne and beyond towards St Neots. The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) has indicated that the proposed Cambridge-Cambourne busway could be completed as soon as 2024, making it a key consideration in determining where future growth should be located. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites as well as along transport corridors. Therefore, dispersal through new settlements, villages and transport corridors would be appropriate locations to develop housing and this site would be key to achieving this aim and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 3.1 The site was submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation in 2019 and Emmanuel College is continuing to promote the site for allocation in the Local Plan. The site is an opportunity to deliver a medium to large scale residential development to help meet the housing needs of the Greater Cambridge Authority. Description of the Proposals 3.2 A concept masterplan has been prepared to show how up to 120 new dwellings could be delivered on the site. The proposed development density would be 30 dwellings per hectare, with a net density likely being in the region of 40 dwellings per hectare. Such a density is consistent with national policy, as indicated by Paragraph 123 of the NPPF, and the context of the site. Figure 2: Concept Masterplan 3.3 The proposals seek to incorporate a range of features which would culminate in the delivery of key public benefits. 3.4 One such feature is the proposed oval of open space which is to be the focal point of the development and will enable a large part of the site to be made permanently available to the community. It is considered that the size and location of the public open space would create an appropriate setting for the Grade II listed building in the south-east of the site. 3.5 The existing Grade II listed building and its associated structures would be retained, with options for their conversion to be explored such as the provision of a community facility for future and existing residents. 3.6 The existing boundary vegetation would be protected, retained, and strengthened along residential boundaries. The scheme would seek to reinforce these existing corridors and would also provide access to the proposed biodiversity enhancements surrounding the oval-shaped area of public open space. 3.7 Further features of the concept masterplan, including commentary on the site’s opportunities and constraints, can be found in the accompanying Vision and Delivery Document. Justification 3.8 Whilst it is acknowledged that the land is designated as protected open space in the adopted Cambridge City Local Plan (2018) and has been discounted in the previous Call for Sites exercise in 2013, the site’s circumstances have since changed. Emmanuel College attained planning permission (REF: 08/0873/FUL) for the change of use of agricultural land to a playing field at land adjacent to Rutherford Road, which was implemented in 2011. This playing field is considerably larger (over seven hectares) in comparison to the site at Wilberforce Road and would comprise a greater quality of sports pitches due to the ability to include a contemporary sustainable drainage system. Consequently, it is Emmanuel College’s intention to relocate the existing sports ground provision at Wilberforce Road to the land adjacent to Rutherford Road, in order to make more efficient use of the land and concentrate the College’s sport provision in one location. 3.9 Such justification is therefore considered to satisfy the criteria set out in Paragraph 97 of the NPPF (pertaining to the development of open space, including playing fields), as it has been demonstrated that the playing field at Wilberforce road is surplus to requirements, and the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location (at land adjacent to Rutherford Road). Consequently, it is considered that the principle of relocating the existing sports provision at Wilberforce Road to the land adjacent to Rutherford Road would be acceptable. 3.10 Although it is noted that Emmanuel College Sports Ground is located within the Conservation Area and is adjacent to a Grade II listed building, such constraints are considered to be overcome via the proposed layout concept masterplan, which indicates an extensive provision of public open space and tree planting. Such measures would retain the existing open space within the curtilage of the on-site listed building, while the proposed dwellings would be sited relatively far away and screened from view via tree planting. 3.11 The listed building on-site could be put to a long-term beneficial use whether this be residential or community uses. 3.12 The concept masterplan indicates that the proposed development would seek to retain and protect the nine TPO-protected trees on-site. 3.13 Notwithstanding the above points, it is evident that the residential development of the site would result in the following benefits: ● The opportunity to deliver a valuable amount of market and affordable housing to help meet the needs of Cambridge; ● Locating residential development in a sustainable location. The site is approximately 1.6km from Cambridge City Centre and is well placed for future residents to be able to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to access higher-order services and facilities. In addition, the site benefits from being located within 500 metres of a bus stop, which is served regularly by services travelling to Cambridge City Centre, Cambourne, and various University of Cambridge institutions; ● Making efficient use of land in a sustainable location, as supported by Paragraph 122 of the NPPF; ● Development in a non-Green Belt location; ● The delivery of over one hectare of public open space; ● Supporting Cambridge’s economy, including local shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site through proposed planting and increasing natural capital. Summary of Technical Assessments 3.14 A Highways Access Review has been carried out to support this promotion. The assessment acknowledges that the proposed access can achieve more than satisfactory visibility splays off Wilberforce Road, with a 2.4m x 90m splay being possible. 3.15 The Review also illustrates that the site is in a highly sustainable location, with future residents being able to access a wide range of facilities available within Cambridge City Centre without relying on the use of a private car. 3.16 A TRICS assessment has been undertaken using the nationally recognised trip rate database to determine the likely vehicle trip rate generated as a result of the proposals. This assessment indicates that the proposals would result in an imperceptible impact on the local highway network. 3.17 A Flood Risk and Drainage Site Appraisal has also been undertaken to support this promotion. This report notes that the site is wholly within Flood Zone 1 and mostly at a very low risk of flooding, although the southern boundary is at a low risk of surface water flooding with low depths. 3.18 The report indicates that there is a low potential for infiltration drainage, due to the clay-based geology of the site. It is therefore likely that an attenuation strategy would be implemented subject to further infiltration testing on site. 3.19 In terms of foul drainage, the closest public sewer is immediately adjacent to the east of the site within Wilberforce Road. Therefore, connection to the public foul sewer would be required for the development. 3.20 A Preliminary Ecology Appraisal also accompanies this submission. This document indicates that the site falls within the Impact Risk Buffer Zone of the Histon Road SSSI, which is located approximately 2.3km to the north. It should be noted, however, that Natural England do not consider new residential development within this risk zone to constitute a risk to the SSSI. 3.21 A non-statutory County Wildlife Site, Coton Path Hedgerow, is located close to the south-west boundary of the site, while a City Wildlife Site, Adams Road Sanctuary, is located on land to the east of the site. Neither of these sites are likely to be directly adversely impacted by future redevelopment of the site. 3.22 The Preliminary Ecology Appraisal also notes that the site has a baseline biodiversity value of 7.46 habitat units. In order to achieve no net loss to biodiversity, the report stipulates that 1.05 hectares of grassland would need to be created (26% of the total site area). To achieve a 10% net gain, then 1.17 hectares of grassland would need to be retained and enhanced (29% of the total site area). Such calculations, however, do not take into account the opportunity for the provision of additional ecological compensatory measures such as the provision of bird and bat boxes across the site. It is therefore likely that less grassland would need to be retained and enhanced in order to achieve a biodiversity net gain, on the basis that additional ecological mitigation is provided as part of the development. 3.23 In terms of protected species, the report indicates that the site has the potential to support the following fauna: ● Birds; ● Bats; and ● Great Crested Newts. 3.24 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal therefore concludes that follow-up surveys of the above species should be undertaken in order to demonstrate that no harm would come to them as a result of the proposed development. 3.25 An Initial Heritage Appraisal also accompanies this representation, which should be read in conjunction with the Vision and Delivery Document. This report indicates that the illustrative layout of the proposed development would likely result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the on-site and adjacent heritage assets. However, the principles set out in the concept masterplan are considered to provide a suitable approach to the development of the site which takes account of the heritage considerations, although further detail at the design stage would be required to determine the exact levels of impact arising. Summary 3.26 Emmanuel College Sports Ground represents a sustainable residential development opportunity which would greatly assist the Greater Cambridge Authority in contributing to its housing need. The site has good public transport links and is located in close proximity to Cambridge City Centre, therefore indicating that future occupiers would likely use sustainable modes of transport to access key services and facilities. 3.27 While the indicative proposals indicate the loss of Protected Open Space, a suitable, larger alternative playing field used by Emmanuel College has been secured at land off Rutherford Road, Cambridge, which has been in use since 2011. Such a justification satisfies the criteria of Paragraph 97 of the NPPF, as it has been demonstrated that the playing field at Wilberforce Road is surplus to requirements, and the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location. The proposals therefore provide a further key public benefit, in that they present an opportunity to unlock a significant amount of public open space which was previously in private use and thus inaccessible to the public.

No uploaded files for public display

I am writing to complain about your Local Plan consultation web pages. I first tried to access the consultation and give my views in late January. I had been to a meeting at Milton Road Library run by xx and realised that as a local resident the plan was going to affect my family and friends in the future. I struggled with it and gave up. Over the next few weeks I have looked at it and seen on Twitter how difficult it is to access. I am pretty good at social media but have been completely flummoxed as to how to get my filled in forms accepted by you. This morning, being the final day I can fill in my views and get them to you, I tried again. I read several tweets on how to do it but I have given up as my patience has been worn down with the sheer incompetence of your site. I have spent three hours filling in forms today which I don't think you have received because I haven't found out how to register! So what can I write before I completely lose my temper and throw the screen out of the window? Perhaps the easiest thing is to say I agree with everything that Camcycle have written. I shall also say that my health has been seriously affected by living on Milton Road and the congestion. I really don't want traffic to be the cause of my death. So: • Be serious about reducing car use by charging and also making sure there are less spaces to park. • Fine single occupant cars • Ensure that builders share vans. It should not be commonplace to see 5 vans with the same building company parked outside a house being renovated • No HGVs. Make them offload away from the city and have electric vehicles do the last few miles. • Reduce the width of roads in the city • Get rid of bus lanes, they will not be needed when car use is reduced • Make the Busway a light rail transport that goes to the stations. Easier to add extra carriages too. • Put light rail through Cambridge with some of it going underground. • Improve cycleways. They must be wide and with trees protecting them from traffic • Make cycleways the priority so motor vehicles have to give way. • Incorporate taxis run by councils that can give discounts for the elderly and infirm • Tax people with more than one vehicle • Increase buses in villages that go to transport hubs on edge of city These are just a few things that need to be done I would like to be informed about the future of the local plan and I would like to see an apology to all those who through time constraints and sheer frustration were unable to access you website.

No uploaded files for public display

I would like to see building of small residential hubs around Cambridge on part of The Green Belt. These should be for mixed ages and provide large open spaces for recreation for all ages. A shop in each Hub would save residents travelling far. A public transport system to link these Hubs would be ideal if practical. All this would reduce the need to travel long distances to work, shops etc.,and avoid making our main transport routes even more congested.

No uploaded files for public display

I live in one of Cambridge's sattelite villages. A higher priority for walking, cycling and public transport in future planning is important to me. I endorse the respose to this consultation provided by Camcycle, the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

No uploaded files for public display

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues and Options 2020 document is a very confusing, lengthy and unclear questionnaire. The pop-up road show was no help. I wish to endorse the response submitted by xx of the Hardwick Climate Change Group.

No uploaded files for public display

I have just read xx excellent email to you today regarding the Local Plan. Like xx, and many of the Milton Road residents, I have found it impossible to access and comment on the consultation and am therefore resorting to email you. Please note that I wholeheartedly agree with the points xx has made in xx email. We do not need the congestion and heavy traffic we are having to deal with on a daily, and nightly basis, and the resulting fumes and noise that this causes. My family are certainly suffering as a result and feel, as residents, that our views are being completely ignored. Please make sure my comments are noted on the Consultation together with xx

No uploaded files for public display