Question 2

Mostly yes

This is not my area of expertise, but as a lay person very concerned about the climate emergency. I was pleased to see such attention to creating the conditions for walking, cycling and public transport and creating a neighbourhood where the need for a car is much reduced.

Mostly yes

Further comments: Please see accompanying letter/statement From Letter: The accessibility of the Cambridge North station to the whole AAP area is noted and rightly highlighted. The connections shown on the various plans (specifically within Figure 37) are supported, including in particular the annotation of the “Planned Waterbeach Greenway” and associated proposed new underpass under the A14 (location 3). These connections are also picked up under the related Policy 16: Sustainable Connectivity, through reference to: “e. Waterbeach Greenway (under A14) – Linear Park – new Guided Busway stop –– Nuffield Road f. Waterbeach Greenway (under A14) – Linear Park – District Centre – Cambridge North Railway Station/Station Approach Local Centre” Policy 17 Connecting to the wider network also addresses these links in respect of the following measures to cross the A14: “b. Existing underpass under the A14 – funding has been secured for a new strategic cycle path from Landbeach and Waterbeach via Mere Way. c. New underpass under the A14 - Greater Cambridge Partnership Waterbeach Greenway route will enter the site to the north of the site adjacent to Milton County Park” It is, however, noted that section 2.1.3 Connections does not fully reflect the full range of non-car links with Waterbeach New Town. Whilst reference is made to the potential for a Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) which may serve North East Cambridge and connect with central Cambridge and the wider area, including Waterbeach, and to planned strategic cycle links (along Mere Way and Waterbeach Greenway), no mention is made of the rail link between the two strategic development areas. With anticipated travel time of just 5 minutes via rail, and planning permission already in place for the new relocated Waterbeach station, as well as the facility featuring as a policy requirement in the SCDC Local Plan and featuring prominently within the Cambridge to Ely Corridor Study, it is important that this omission should be addressed.

Mostly not

Further comments: We are also concerned that the area is seen in isolation and not how it connects to villages outside of central Cambridge. Stronger connection to the Chisum trail would help.

Mostly yes

• Further improvements are needed to permeability for walking and cyling, and reductions in conflicts with motor vehicles at junctions, especially with Milton Rd. • The AAP must take responsibility for co-ordinating action with Network Rail and other stakeholders to replace road access to Chesterton Fen via Fen Rd level a new road bridge from Cowley Rd.

Neutral

No comment

Mostly yes

The overall approach to mobility outlined in the NECAAP, focusing and prioritising walking and cycling in additional to shared travel opportunities is supported. The shift from a predict and provide approach towards a vision and validate approach is something we advocate. This will help direct investment towards local living and active and shared travel opportunities. The approach will help a move away from investment in infrastructure that prioritises and encourages car use which historically has occurred due to the focus on forecast based evidence. Through the discussions on the NECAAP Action Plan Evidence Base (September 2019) and resultant implications for the NECAAP area it has become increasingly apparent that there is a requirement for a strategic approach to deliver the step change in modal shift required to facilitate development within the NECAAP area. In terms of walking and cycling the NECAAP proposes the measures shown in Figure 5. The commitment to prioritising walking and cycling over vehicular traffic should be taken through to the assessment stage. Any benefits in this regard should not be viewed negatively should they result in increased journey times for those travelling in vehicles. Such an approach will truly prioritise walking and cycling. Protecting the status quo for vehicles may act as a constraint to the delivery of walking and cycling measures. Strategic walking and cycling routes TCC does not support the strategic route illustrated within the NECAAP through the centre of the CSP. The masterplan for CSP preserves this route as a tranquil area for leisure and wandering. Indeed Figure 19 and Policy 8 within the Draft NECAAP refer to the value of the open space provided within Cambridge Science Park. Research by Strava in 2014 revealed that cycle commuters in Cambridgeshire are the fastest in the UK logging an average speed of 26kmh (16.1 mph); as an average speed the implication would be that much higher speeds need to be accounted for. Commuting cyclists therefore need their own route which is not at odds with the purpose of open space. The current route as illustrated by Figure 36 in the draft NECAAP would potentially frustrate and disincentivise commuting cyclists and put the enjoyment and safety of users of the open space at odds. The inner ring road within CSP can be modified to provide enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists including the provision of a fully segregated cycle route. This should be reflected in the figure as the strategic cycling route (see figure 6). Cycling & Connections TCC agree that cycle parking provision in excess of Local Plan requirements are likely to be needed. Clarity is needed over the following statement where it is not clear how the level of cycle parking will directly demonstrate conformity with the trip budget. ‘Applicants will need to demonstrate that they have fully considered the appropriate levels to provide cycle parking within the Design and Access Statement and Travel Plan that accompany their planning applications to demonstrate that they will meet the trip budget’. The acknowledgement that electric cycles or ebikes can enable greater travel and commuting distances is welcomed. This should be recognised by the approving authorities when considering trip attraction and generation within Transport Assessments. The reach of cyclising as a mode of travel can be expanded beyond ‘standard’ distances. The reference to Cambridge City Council’s Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments needs to be reviewed where this document does not provide guidance on the full range of matters provided in the policy. Notwithstanding this, to deliver a new district of the scale proposed an implementable package of measures are required. The role of Cambridge Science Park together with Cambridge Science Park North (detailed later in this document), as an extension to the existing Cambridge Science Park offers a solution which incorporates both existing and proposed public transport infrastructure to intercept car movements and further promote the use of sustainable transport modes, including walking and cycling. Moreover, our proposals seek to provide a step change in the use of private vehicles to access employment destinations within the NECAAP area. Our proposals provide a consolidated location for parking which is linked to a mobility hub providing pedestrian, cycle, PLEV, shuttle and sustainable mass transit facilities for onward travel. Milton Road Crossing: There is nothing presented within the evidence base at this stage to suggest that the crossing of Milton Road needs to be via a bridge. There does not appear to be any clearly identified reason why grade separation is preferred. Indeed, this approach is also at odds with the principles for at-grade crossings of Milton Road at the busway detailed elsewhere in the NECAAP. The busway link is the most critical route for movements between CRC / CSP and Cambridge North Station. It is not clear why at-grade crossings are acceptable at this location, but grade separation is identified further north. TCC has significant concerns that once appropriate clearance heights to a bridge and, gradients and ramp lengths for users are accounted for, the provision of a bridge is likely to be unfeasible. At-grade crossing facilities are generally preferable to grade separation. The requirement to funnel people towards the end of the ramp has the clear potential to take people away from their desire line. People will continue to cross Milton Road at-grade. There is also a wider consistency point for this crossing. Elsewhere in the NECAAP and other supporting documents, the relative roles of grade or at-grade seem to be presented in absolute terms. A more balanced consideration of the crossing type should be considered in this section of the policy. TCC strongly objects to the wording within Policy 17: … Unless more detailed design can prove the feasibility of a street level crossing of Milton Road, this crossing is likely to be a bridge. It needs to be acknowledged that the ability to cross at-grade already exists. This will be improved through the implementation of CSP committed development and can be improved even further, especially for cyclists. We maintain that the case for grade separation is unproven, has not been costed and is potentially detrimental to the movement of people, reinforcing the barrier effect of Milton Road and placing people below vehicles in the road user’s hierarchy. The Internalisation Topic Paper referred to as providing part of the evidence base sets out that the feature to address at Milton Road would be ‘At grade (at street level) or grade separated (e.g. bridge or under-pass) facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the Milton Road.. Grade separation cannot be seen to be prioritising walking and cycling over vehicle movements in using 1950’s style methods to sperate vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Quite the opposite. TCC strongly agree with the statement ‘the policy approach focuses on reducing the need to travel and facilitating travel by non-car modes rather than catering for vehicular trips’. These measures begin to provide additional certainty to the narrative of supporting the existing employment sites through the provision of improved sustainable transport measures. However, what is also not clear at present is the timescales and deliverability of these measures

Mostly yes

No answer given

Nothing chosen

We welcome proposed new links, bridges and underpasses, presented in Figure 1.2, to improve access to existing green spaces (Nun’s Way Recreation Ground, Milton CP, Chesterton Fen, Bramblefields LNR) subject to enhancements being made to those sites to increase their sure no adverse impact to biodiversity or people’s enjoyment of those spaces. This needs to be addressed through a delivery plan.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Nothing chosen

While RSPB have no specific comment to the questions, there are few points of principle we would like to raise. • While each subject area sets out advanced thinking to promote sustainable travel, provide social and cultural hubs and facilities, as well as achieving the right balance and density of domestic and commercial premises, these typically generate large proportions of hard landscape, exacerbating the ‘heat island’ effect.⁵, ⁶, ⁷ • To meet the aims and objectives of climate resilience, we feel it important all flat roofed buildings, have at the very minimum a biosolar green roof, and ultimately wherever possible a biosolar blue-green roof. We would like to see the landscaped roofs manipulated to benefit biodiversity, contributing toward net gain and mitigating for loss of brownfield habitat on site.⁸, ⁹ Where appropriate, some roofs and terraces may also be used for community food growing. • We would also encourage and support the use of green walls wherever possible across all domestic and commercial properties or premises.¹⁰ • We would like to see all domestic housing fitted with solar panels, ground source heat and water butts as a core function of their sustainability design. __________________________ Qualifying points to responses: ⁵We would urge every effort is made to maximise opportunities for green space. We would like to see a reduction of ‘dead space’ in paved and hard landscaped areas and given over instead to soft landscape, including rain gardens. ⁶Where appropriate, hard landscape must double additionally as flood storage facility and be used innovatively, where appropriate, to convey water as part of any SuDS management train. Such measures will add value to climate resilience and placemaking. ⁷We would also expect all hard surfaces, from foot and cycle paths to roads, to be permeable and remove the need for costly and environmentally damaging gully pots and other traditional outdated techniques. ⁸Green roofs help alleviate heat island effect, absorb atmospheric pollutants, provide summer and winter thermo-regulation of building temperature, acoustic insulation and reduce rates of run-off. Blue-green roofs provide protracted water storage which can either be released more slowly back into the system or for other purposes that will reduce the impacts on potable water supplies. This might also include the irrigation of green wall systems. ⁹Solar panels will work more efficiently when used in conjunction with the vegetation of a green roof, helping maintain a constant ambient working temperature of around 25⁰c. ¹⁰Green walls will improve climate resilience by thermo regulating the temperatures of buildings, improve acoustic insulation, trap airborne pollutants and help cool the atmosphere. In addition, they will provide amenity value.

Nothing chosen

2.1 The site will need to take advantage of additional walking, cycling and public transport links currently being planned such as cycle routes from Waterbeach and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the GCP’s Waterbeach to Science Park public transport link. Public transport to the city centre and other areas of the city will also be key to further reducing the car mode share of the site. The CPCA’s plans for CAM will contribute to this offer if a tunnelled section from the city centre connects into the site and eventually incorporates the St Ives and Waterbeach extensions. 2.2 Connections into these links are well identified in the spatial framework however it will be critical for the detailed design of each area to ensure that a cohesive network of cycle and walking routes is created throughout the area. The section on mobility hubs in policy 19 is welcomed as a means of trying to provide sufficient flexible space to accommodate new and emerging technologies. 2.3 Milton Road currently severs the east and west sides of the AAP area and is an inhospitable road to cross for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users. The plan contains proposals to provide segregated crossings of Milton Road for these groups. The principle of these is supported but it is noted that much more work is required as the detailed planning of the site comes forward to work up the exact design of these and input from the highway authority will be required throughout.

Nothing chosen

Please see attached Letter including representations on behalf of The Crown Estate.

Nothing chosen

No. If the sewage works are relocated at Site 1 or 2 then Mere Way will be severed or rendered an unappealing route. Mere Way is supposed to be the cycle route from Waterbeach New Town, as well as existing villages.

Mostly yes

CSP was founded on the basis of establishing strategic structural landscaping for the Park as a whole, coupled with landscaping for each plot, low rise / low density buildings (in terms of plot ratio) of typically 1 – 3 storeys, and generous levels of car parking for each building. Since the introduction of the Busway and Cambridge North Station, there has been a trend in the redevelopment of older building stock, with taller buildings (typically 4-storeys), lower car parking levels (due to improved pedestrian, cycle and public transport accessibility), and significantly lower on-plot landscaping (on the basis that occupiers will have access to the established strategic structural landscaping nearby). The whole of the NEC AAP area will be within a 10-minute cycle ride or a 30-minute walk from Cambridge North station and Busway. The street network will enable a seamless transfer from public transport to walking and cycling, ensuring that those who commute into the area don’t need to drive to work. The NEC AAP includes new and improved crossings across Milton Road, the A14, the Busway and other major routes, linking surrounding neighbourhoods with the new ones that will be forming. The NEC AAP will lead to a positive step-change in how older building stock is optimised in redevelopment; significantly enhanced connectivity will enable plots to offer lower levels of on- site car parking (but higher cycle parking) and, along with taller height parameters (between 4 – 6 storeys), it will create opportunities for higher density / finer urban grain in the area. The higher density will be supported by the legacy of established strategic structural landscaping around CSP.

Mostly yes

CSP was founded on the basis of establishing strategic structural landscaping for the Park as a whole, coupled with landscaping for each plot, low rise / low density buildings (in terms of plot ratio) of typically 1 – 3 storeys, and generous levels of car parking for each building. Since the introduction of the Busway and Cambridge North Station, there has been a trend in the redevelopment of older building stock, with taller buildings (typically 4-storeys), lower car parking levels (due to improved pedestrian, cycle and public transport accessibility), and significantly lower on-plot landscaping (on the basis that occupiers will have access to the established strategic structural landscaping nearby). The whole of the NEC AAP area will be within a 10-minute cycle ride or a 30 minute walk from Cambridge North station and Busway. The street network will enable a seamless transfer from public transport to walking and cycling, ensuring that those who commute into the area don’t need to drive to work. The NEC AAP includes new and improved crossings across Milton Road, the A14, the Busway and other major routes, linking surrounding neighbourhoods with the new ones that will be forming. The NEC AAP will lead to a positive step-change in how older building stock is optimised in redevelopment; significantly enhanced connectivity will enable plots to offer lower levels of on- site car parking (but higher cycle parking) and, along with taller height parameters (between 4 – 6 storeys), it will create opportunities for higher density / finer urban grain in the area. The higher density will be supported by the legacy of established strategic structural landscaping around CSP.

Mostly yes

SJIP is formed around 2/3 storey large footprint buildings, with a large central amenity green space at its centre, and dense landscaping and generous car parking provision around its edges. The most recent addition to SJIP was the construction of the Maurice Wilks building, currently occupied by Darktrace, an office building of 4/5 storeys in height totalling 7,049m2 (GIA). There has also recently been a planning application submitted on the adjoining site to the west of Vitrum for two new office buildings of 5/6 storeys in height totalling 30,734m2 (GIA). This is currently awaiting determination. The whole of the NEC AAP area will be within a 10-minute cycle ride or a 30-minute walk from Cambridge North station and Busway. The street network will enable a seamless transfer from public transport to walking and cycling, ensuring that those who commute into the area don’t need to drive to work. The NEC AAP includes new and improved crossings across Milton Road, the A14, the Busway and other major routes, linking surrounding neighbourhoods with the new ones that will be forming. The NEC AAP will lead to a positive step-change in how older building stock is optimised in redevelopment; significantly enhanced connectivity will enable plots to offer lower levels of on- site car parking (but higher cycle parking) and, along with taller height parameters (between 4 – 6 storeys), it will create opportunities for higher density / finer urban grain in the area.