Waterbeach New Town SPD

I broadly support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of active transport (cycling and walking), but are concerned that the SPD does not go far enough to deliver such a development.
I am very disappointed to see that the SPD is essentially a combination of the two outline planning applications which have already been submitted by the two New Town developers - Urban and Civic, and RLW. The whole point of an SPD is for the planning authority to create a framework it wants the developers to use in line with the Council's vision and expectations for the community it is creating. This vision should be as aspirational as possible outlining clearly and prescriptively how the developer should undertake the development of the site in adherence to the Council's vision. Instead, it appears the production of this document has been driven by the developers rather than the District Council. The vision presented by SCDC in Section 3 is commendable, but the proposals presented in the subsequent chapters do not support this vision.
It is interesting to note that I cannot see any of the public's concerns that I read or heard when I attended the numerous public consultations in the village have been addressed in the submitted planning applications by the developers, and none of these concerns have been addressed in the SPD.
I do have significant concerns about the impact the development will have on the existing village, especially for residents in the Cody Road area. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited.
I have used WBCC document as a framework for my comments and have kept their comment structure to help make my consultation response clear, so I have put structured this document using the same titles as in the document, have put quotations from the SPD in red, with my comments and proposals for changes to the SPD in blue. I have used bold to emphasise my key objections.
Section 3 - Vision
This section gives the vision for the development. I support much of this vision, but the SPD does not provide evidence to realise the vision. Much of this consultation response offers changes to the SPD to help improve the SPD such that the SCDC vision can be met.

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." There is little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority. This table should have an entry as follows:
Infrastructure Scheme Description Other Columns...
Pedestrian and Cycle routes within the new development Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes. TBC by SCDC.

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework
This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I strongly oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
● Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
● Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
● It will also greatly reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).
A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
● Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
● Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
● Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
● Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable it is also the main route to school by parents and children from Bannold Road and Cody Road.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery- which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road.

I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

Figure 17 (page 42) shows a school located at the A10 entrance of the development site. I strongly oppose this proposal. Locating a school here will encourage parents to drop children off by car, and continue to commute to their workplace by car. Additionally, the proximity of the school to the A10 will lead to elevated exposure to air pollutants for school children.

To encourage fewer car journeys (and to change the mind-set of the next generation of children such that they consider cycling and walking to be the normal modes of transport), schools need to be located away from the primary street network with a 'No parking' zone around them. This is commonplace in Europe and is becoming more popular in UK - eg in Hackney https://www.hackney.gov.uk/school-streets and has considerable air quality benefits for school children both in school, and during their journeys to and from school. Studies have found that people are exposed to higher levels of air pollution inside a vehicle than those cycling or walking outside because particulates build up inside the vehicle[1]. This innovative and important initiative should be used within the New Town, and be enforced through a criterion in the SPD.

Figure 17 (page 42) does not have a complete key, it is unclear what the pink lines on this figure are representing. Please can you provide a complete key?

The criteria for the future location and design of schools (page 43) includes "proximity to primary and secondary road network." This is an unacceptable criterion for both active travel and air quality reasons, and will lead to high levels of car use within the development. This will make journeys by car the easiest way for parents to drop their children off at school, who then will likely continue by car to their place of employment. This clause needs removing from the SPD and replaced with a clause supporting 'no parking zones' around all schools as discussed above.

The primary movement network is presented in Figure 18 on page 45. This shows a highly interconnected road network for cars, with routes bisecting the new town as a whole. This network will encourage car use for journeys within the development, with cars being able to make direct routes between destinations within the development. This road network will also bring external traffic through the middle of the development site. Crossing this road will discourage walking and cycling within the site. The two primary routes bisect at the town centre where there will be the highest concentration of pedestrians and cyclists. I strongly oppose these proposals, which is contrary to the SCDC vision of prioritising walking and cycling.
It would make more sense that primary routes are taken around the edge of the site, with radial connections linking sectors of the development site to the primary route. Connections linking sectors of the development through the middle of the site should be limited to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. This model has been used great effect in the Netherlands, for example the town of Houten[2]. The primary road network for Waterbeach New Town needs to be taken back to the drawing board to make sure that the development meets the vision of a development with high levels of active transport.
Statements on page 45-46 are directly contradictory:
● Development proposals must emphasise and prioritise sustainable patterns of movement across the New Town (see Principle 1).
● The primary street network will play a key role in the wider character and legibility of the site, as well as being key vehicle routes. Quality of the public realm and surrounding built environment is essential to creating routes which are attractive for walking, cycling and public transport, and which connect rather than divide neighbourhoods.
● The Primary route/ high street will also be a highly active location where social life takes priority over vehicle movement. It will be appropriate to limit and tightly manage vehicle access to the high street and town centre area
The proposal shows a primary route through the middle of the town. Providing a "highly active area" which is "attractive for walking, cycling and public transport" is incompatible with a primary route through the area. This needs to be improved by adopting a different model, such as the Houten model mentioned above.
Page 46 has a proposal that "All pedestrian and cycle routes will be direct, safe, continuous and attractive." It would be good to expand this to include "and also be designed with strong natural surveillance to bolster personal security".
Page 46 lists a link to Chittering as a strategic walking and cycling route, but Figure 31 on Page 70 does not show this as a strategic connection. It is important that this connection is given the status of a strategic connection, with a surface suitable for all weather journeys. Residents in Chittering (which is part of Waterbeach parish) will want to access the New Town and existing village facilities, and currently have no options for cycling to the south.
Page 47 states that "All pedestrian and cycle routes will be direct, safe, continuous and attractive." How can this be the case if they are broken up by primary and secondary vehicle routes? The SPD requires firm guiding principles to make direct, safe, and attractive routes.
On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal. This statement is removed, and there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town and we were told categorically in the consultations meetings that this would not happen.
Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the vaguely worded "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. I can see routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.
Table 6 on page 67 gives the land use budget for the development. This table does not include any land allocation for pedestrian/cycle paths off road. This table needs to be amended with an entry for cycle/footpaths to ensure that sufficient land is allocated from the outset for this infrastructure.
In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation"
Section 5 - Guiding Principles
Figure 32 on page 84 shows the primary walking and cycling routes being the same as the primary and secondary roads. On page 83, it is stated that Primary streets will include segregated cycle paths, but there is no mention of secondary streets. Cyclists and motor traffic must be segregated on all streets including secondary routes. This is important to make sure that children and other less confident cyclists use cycling as an everyday mode of transport.
On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." I strongly oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation mode shift from everyday car use to other modes of transport (page 7).
On page 85 is the proposal, "Vehicular connections between the village and the new town will be restricted to public transport only. This could be enforced by the use of a bus gate or similar restriction." To ensure that this is delivered, this measure should be a fix, not a guideline.
On page 86 is the proposal "Streets which have a limited role in the movement network should be laid out to discourage through-traffic. A filtered grid of residential streets can facilitate this whilst retaining permeability and a choice of routes for pedestrians and cyclists." To ensure that this is delivered, this measure should be a fix, not a guideline.
On page 87 are proposals for mitigating impacts on the surrounding road network. These should also be fixes rather than guidelines.
Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

These 'improvements' to the road network will have an air quality impact. Developments should not be allowed[3] where they are likely to adversely impact an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The closest AQMA to the development site is the A14 at Milton. It is essential that impact upon the A10 be mitigated to avoid reducing air quality within this AQMA.
On page 89 is the statement, "Key cycle and bus connections to Cambridge and other key destinations should be phased at the earliest opportunity. The relocated railway station should also be provided as early in the development as possible." This is too vague and needs to be reworded so that the measures are provided before first occupation. It is important that there is a behaviour of active transport from day one. If new residents begin using their cars for common everyday journeys because the infrastructure is not built, it will be more difficult to achieve the behavioural shift later.
Section 6 - Delivering the place
The proposals in 6.2 - Infrastructure Delivery Plan have "trigger" points which defines when the infrastructure will be delivered. WCC have proposed some changes to certain trigger points below, such that active transport is available as an option from Day 1 for all residents of the new town.
● On page 118 are proposals for "Improved and new foot/cycleway from Waterbeach to north of city (including bridge over A10)", with the vague trigger "To be identified through the transport assessment process". This trigger must be changed so that this link is available pre-occupation, as new residents are likely to work in Cambridge and the current options for cycling to Cambridge are dangerous (A10 cycle route) or not suitable for commuting (Hayling Way - river path).
● It is important that the link to Cottenham (page 119) is delivered pre-occupation. This is the location of the secondary school for the development up to the point where the first secondary school will be built in the New Town (trigger point 2000 houses), which is likely to occur at around 2030. It is important that children have the opportunity to cycle to school for the first few years of the development.

● The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.

● It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.

Page 140 describes work to be carried out in Phase 1 of the New Town development. To ensure there is no traffic brought through the existing village to the new station, the following bullet point should be added to this list:
● Direct access from the A10 to the relocated station for traffic to access the new station.

Figure 34 on page 141 seems crucial to understanding the phasing of the development, but there is no key provided, and no indication of where the first houses will be located within the phase. It seems to suggest houses will be built along the primary road network, which could be a disaster for sustainable transport aspirations. More clarification is needed in this figure.
Other Issues not covered in the SPD
Routing of Construction Traffic
There is no mention in the SPD of routing of construction traffic for the development. I have concerns that RLW will route construction traffic for their development through the existing village and along the (consented) route to the relocated train station off Cody Road. I cannot accept an SPD which allows construction traffic for the new town to be routed through the village - all construction vehicles need to be routed through the development site directly from the A10 - both for the U&C and RLW developments.

I have uploaded two documents created by Waterbeach Cycling Campaign that provide a vision for the development that reflect my views much better than the SPD .

This response is made for and on behalf of Anglian Water who support the development in principle and the proposals in the SPD.

Anglian Water is required to provide waste water treatment services for the new development. Potable water is provided by Cambridge Water.

There is limited further capacity within the current Water Recycling Centre ("WRC") at Waterbeach and given this and the estimated delivery time for new housing there is a need to develop an overall waste water drainage strategy.

Anglian Water have engaged with all stakeholders in the development of this drainage strategy and hold regular Steering Group meetings and attend the Waterbeach Community Forums. The Steering Group members include various employees of Anglian Water involved in the project, RLW, Urban and Civic, South Cambridgeshire District Council, The Environment Agency, The Ely Internal Drainage Board and Cambridge County Council.

The most favourable solution to the limited further capacity at the WRC has to date been the construction of a new, larger works on a relocated site of approximately 10-15 acres.

The statement made on page 125 of the SPD regarding the delivery strategy is correct in that it identifies the current further available capacity at the WRC to be approximately 500 extra dwellings and that there is the possibility to connect, on a temporary basis, to the Research Park to allow drainage for a further (approximate) 900 units. It must be noted that this capacity has not been "secured". Capacity cannot be reserved within the exiting network. In accordance with Water Industry Act 1991, connections to the exiting network are permissible on a first come, first served basis.

Anglian Water have a further comment to add to this section, namely that they are developing a further option to provide waste water drainage whilst a new works is being constructed. Capacity for a further 750 dwellings will be achieved by diverting, via a new pipeline, the existing discharge point at the WRC from the Bannolds drove IDB controlled drain, to a new discharge point in the River Cam where there is much greater dilution than the current discharge point.

Both Urban and Civic and RLW have been working closely with Anglian Water to ensure that capacity is available in the waste water network by underwriting the financing of the detailed design for the new water recycling centre. Anglian Water is funded by Ofwat on 5 yearly business plan cycles/Asset Management Period or "AMPS". The new water recycling centre will not be in a position to receive funding until after planning permission is granted and the development has legitimate planning status. The new works are listed as required within the next AMP (2019-2024). As detailed above, there are 3 options available to provide extra waste water draiange for the planned development whilst the new water recycling centre is in construction.

Anglian Water also wishes to comment on the table set out on page 145 in approaches to delivery.

Anglian Water have been designing and working towards the build out rates provided by both developers in their building trajectories for the site. These combined estimates takes the number of constructed dwelling to approximately 4,500 by 2031, considerably more than the 2,300 by 2031 suggested in the SPD.

In addition, the Local Plan suggests that the new development will accommodate up to 9000 dwellings in total, yet the two outline planning applications that have been submitted total 11,000 dwellings.

It is critical to Anglian Water to understand the number of dwellings the new water recycling centre must be designed to accommodate. Anglian Water require a degree of certainty about these numbers to ensure the correct design horizons and the appropriate funding from Ofwat at the appropriate time. If the estimates are incorrect, Anglian Water could be over sizing a waste water recycling centre or delivering a works before it is needed. The most accurate number of dwellings and their estimated delivery date should be included within the SPD to establish the correct need date and the correct overall waste water drainage strategy. If this is not possible, a restricted number of properties should be permitted within a defined phasing programme.

Anglian Water would wish to ensure that water re-use and SUDS schemes are promoted wherever possible within the SPD. Whilst Anglian Water cannot enforce either of these options and are not responsible for their implementation or long term maintenance, as part of a long term resilience plan and environmental advanced development, Anglian Water would wish to see more details of how the two developers can deliver these options reflected within the SPD.

Station district - do not support high height for this district. adjacent to fenland location so keep housing to low-rise and light pollution to the minimum required.

Segregated access to the existing village utilizing cody road should not be accessible from the new development by private vehicle, to avoid it becoming a rat run. Taxi and bus and emergency services may have access.

Car parking from new development should be limited with amply cycle parking and linking bus routes to facilitate public transport.

Primary movement should not have linked secondary routes, to ensure that only the primary route/loop are favoured for cars. This would be similar to development in Milton with a linking road and multiple cul-de-sac from this into the housing area. Linking foot and cycle paths then become the preferential means of movement within the development.

Cycle routes should be committed to being high quality with ample width - 3m wide hard smooth surfaces. Green-way link to Cambridge and new station should be required before >3000 homes are developed, to ensure cycling becomes embedded as a main transport option to Cambridge. Otherwise the A10 will become a car park!

Bus services tot he village have recently been cut - no service to Cody road any more. Needs assurances that planned services and improvements will be followed through before too much of the development it built..

Station district - do not support high height for this district. adjacent to fenland location so keep housing to low-rise and light pollution to the minimum required.

Segregated access to the existing village utilizing cody road should not be accessible from the new development by private vehicle, to avoid it becoming a rat run. Taxi and bus and emergency services may have access.

Car parking from new development should be limited with amply cycle parking and linking bus routes to facilitate public transport.

Primary movement should not have linked secondary routes, to ensure that only the primary route/loop are favoured for cars. This would be similar to development in Milton with a linking road and multiple cul-de-sac from this into the housing area. Linking foot and cycle paths then become the preferential means of movement within the development.

Cycle routes should be committed to being high quality with ample width - 3m wide hard smooth surfaces. Green-way link to Cambridge and new station should be required before >3000 homes are developed, to ensure cycling becomes embedded as a main transport option to Cambridge. Otherwise the A10 will become a car park!

Bus services tot he village have recently been cut - no service to Cody road any more. Needs assurances that planned services and improvements will be followed through before too much of the development it built..

I do not agree with the old part of the village being used as a cut through by even more traffic. I think construction traffic shouldn't go through the old village. Waterbeach Community Land Trust should be given some land to build an eco project.The carbon footprint of all the development needs to be minimised.

COMMENTS MADE ON SA SCREENING DOC:
Sustainable eco building with minimal cars outside centre,like Eddington,Cambridge and Houten,cycle town in the Netherlands. Global warming is now drastic 5 years possibly to the point of no return to save the planet. This must now impact on all future building plans. Shouldn't Cambridge lead the way of what is right to do. Build a new town with public transport and cycling as key features. People First as Waterbeach Cycling Campaign argued. RWT had bikes close by and cars only to houses for dropping off in one original plan. Residents are more likely to use their bikes then or walk to the station.

The new station needs direct access from the A10 to go people to switch to the train. The train platform will need to be able to accommodate 12 carriage trains.

I do not agree with the old part of the village being used as a cut through by even more traffic. I think construction traffic shouldn't go through the old village. Waterbeach Community Land Trust should be given some land to build an eco project.The carbon footprint of all the development needs to be minimised.

COMMENTS MADE ON SA SCREENING DOC:
Sustainable eco building with minimal cars outside centre,like Eddington,Cambridge and Houten,cycle town in the Netherlands. Global warming is now drastic 5 years possibly to the point of no return to save the planet. This must now impact on all future building plans. Shouldn't Cambridge lead the way of what is right to do. Build a new town with public transport and cycling as key features. People First as Waterbeach Cycling Campaign argued. RWT had bikes close by and cars only to houses for dropping off in one original plan. Residents are more likely to use their bikes then or walk to the station.

The new station needs direct access from the A10 to go people to switch to the train. The train platform will need to be able to accommodate 12 carriage trains.

The vision in the SPD (described in p30-31) is for Waterbeach as "an environmentally sustainable new town, where it is easy for people to make the transition to a low carbon lifestyle. This means making the best use of energy, water and other natural resources, securing radical reductions in carbon emissions, minimising the environmental impact and being capable of adapting to the impacts of climate change"

This vision is aligned with Policy SS/6 of the newly adopted S Cambs local plan which specifies that Waterbeach New Town "will deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development and healthier living".

We support this.

However, we are objecting to the SPD on the grounds that it needs to demonstrate much more ambition, particularly with regard to energy efficiency and decarbonisation, if it is to come close to delivering on either the policy or the vision.

Much more ambition on energy efficiency and decarbonisation
This policy requirement to deliver excellence in sustainable development has become even more important than it was when the local plan was drafted because of the increasing urgency of addressing climate change. This is given force by the following legislation and policies.

National requirements: The UK's legally binding Climate Act, requires the UK to achieve a reduction in Carbon emissions of at least 80% by 2050. This is a challenging target and likely to be made even more challenging shortly, given the legally binding commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement, and the recent IPCC report on how we can achieve a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5C. On 15 October 2018 the government officially asked the Committee on Climate Change to advise on whether to set a Net Zero target. Insiders say that it is considered likely that the CCC will advise that the UK should set a net zero target for somewhere between 2045 and 2050. As the construction of Waterbeach New Town won't be fully built until shortly before this, if it is to demonstrate "excellence in sustainable development" must pay serious attention to achieving Net Zero carbon emissions in use and in construction.

The National Planning Policy Framework of July 2018 (para 48) says that "the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate" and that it should help "shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gases" [our emphasis] Simply specifying 'Building Regulations' energy efficiency is not contributing to a "radical reduction in greenhouse gases"

The newly adopted S Cambs local plan specifies that Waterbeach New Town "will deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development and healthier living" and specifies (4.10) "high levels of energy efficiency" When the S Cambs local plan was prepared it's authors may have been in doubt whether they had the power to require higher standards than building regs. However, in clarification of the July 2018 NPPF the government confirmed that local councils do have the power to require this. https://www.ukgbc.org/news/government-confirms-local-authorities-can-set-energy-standards-beyond-part-l-in-nppf/

Energy Efficiency
If Waterbeach New Town is to meet the requirements of the S Cambs local plan to deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development, it is wholly inadequate to specify that homes are built to building regs + 10% carbon reduction due to onsite Renewable Energy. We also note multiple loopholes allowing developers to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

The SPD should specify that all new homes should be Net Zero carbon emissions in operation by 2030. At a very minimum, the required should at least match, and preferably exceed the standards set by other developments. For example:
* Greater Manchester committed on 21st March 2018 to the introduction of a zero carbon standard for all new homes and buildings in the updated GM Spatial Framework
* North West Cambridge ie Eddington required all homes to be CSE Code 5 https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/2710/north-west-cambridge-area-action-plan.pdf
* Cambridge City and S Cambs are now a joint planning authority. At a very minimum, the Waterbeach SPD should meet the standards specified in policy 28 of the Cambridge City Local plan, which specifies carbon emissions 44% better than part L of 2006 building regs (ie 19% better than current regs) or what used to be known as CSE Code 4 . Note that Code 4 was commonly used as a standard for Social Housing, so this standard supports aspirations to provide affordable and social housing.

Further detailed Guidance for local authorities on achieving sustainability in new homes is given by the UKGBC here https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Driving-sustainability-in-new-homes-UKGBC-resource-Sept-2018-1.pdf

Decarbonisation
Rather than just requiring developers to "think about" providing smart energy systems, the provision Smart Energy systems should be mandatory. The provision and smart management of significant quantities of on-site renewables and storage will be vital for delivering an attractive place to live well before 2030. Given the limited grid capacity in the area, this is already urgent, and it is only likely to become more important as the power grid further decarbonises, and the demand for electric vehicles and electric (or heat pump) space heating and becomes widespread.

Regular review of targets
As Waterbeach will take 25 years to build, we are calling for regular reviews (say every 5 years) to allow targets to be increased in line with government policy, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and science based targets for how to achieve the necessary reduction in carbon emissions.

Mitigating climate related Risks
Even if we all act to reduce Carbon emission as fast as is technically possible, we will face increasingly significant risks from our changing climate. To somewhat mitigate these risks for the inhabitants of Waterbeach, the SPD should set firm standards to require developers avoid overheating during heatwaves, particularly in single aspect south facing flats (for example by providing shading, solar control glazing and through ventilation)

Flood risk also needs serious attention, particularly in the high risk areas to the Eastern part of the development, which includes the strategically important areas surrounding the train stations (current and new).

The vision in the SPD (described in p30-31) is for Waterbeach as "an environmentally sustainable new town, where it is easy for people to make the transition to a low carbon lifestyle. This means making the best use of energy, water and other natural resources, securing radical reductions in carbon emissions, minimising the environmental impact and being capable of adapting to the impacts of climate change"

This vision is aligned with Policy SS/6 of the newly adopted S Cambs local plan which specifies that Waterbeach New Town "will deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development and healthier living".

We support this.

However, we are objecting to the SPD on the grounds that it needs to demonstrate much more ambition, particularly with regard to energy efficiency and decarbonisation, if it is to come close to delivering on either the policy or the vision.

Much more ambition on energy efficiency and decarbonisation
This policy requirement to deliver excellence in sustainable development has become even more important than it was when the local plan was drafted because of the increasing urgency of addressing climate change. This is given force by the following legislation and policies.

National requirements: The UK's legally binding Climate Act, requires the UK to achieve a reduction in Carbon emissions of at least 80% by 2050. This is a challenging target and likely to be made even more challenging shortly, given the legally binding commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement, and the recent IPCC report on how we can achieve a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5C. On 15 October 2018 the government officially asked the Committee on Climate Change to advise on whether to set a Net Zero target. Insiders say that it is considered likely that the CCC will advise that the UK should set a net zero target for somewhere between 2045 and 2050. As the construction of Waterbeach New Town won't be fully built until shortly before this, if it is to demonstrate "excellence in sustainable development" must pay serious attention to achieving Net Zero carbon emissions in use and in construction.

The National Planning Policy Framework of July 2018 (para 48) says that "the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate" and that it should help "shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gases" [our emphasis] Simply specifying 'Building Regulations' energy efficiency is not contributing to a "radical reduction in greenhouse gases"

The newly adopted S Cambs local plan specifies that Waterbeach New Town "will deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development and healthier living" and specifies (4.10) "high levels of energy efficiency" When the S Cambs local plan was prepared it's authors may have been in doubt whether they had the power to require higher standards than building regs. However, in clarification of the July 2018 NPPF the government confirmed that local councils do have the power to require this. https://www.ukgbc.org/news/government-confirms-local-authorities-can-set-energy-standards-beyond-part-l-in-nppf/

Energy Efficiency
If Waterbeach New Town is to meet the requirements of the S Cambs local plan to deliver an example of excellence in sustainable development, it is wholly inadequate to specify that homes are built to building regs + 10% carbon reduction due to onsite Renewable Energy. We also note multiple loopholes allowing developers to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

The SPD should specify that all new homes should be Net Zero carbon emissions in operation by 2030. At a very minimum, the required should at least match, and preferably exceed the standards set by other developments. For example:
* Greater Manchester committed on 21st March 2018 to the introduction of a zero carbon standard for all new homes and buildings in the updated GM Spatial Framework
* North West Cambridge ie Eddington required all homes to be CSE Code 5 https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/2710/north-west-cambridge-area-action-plan.pdf
* Cambridge City and S Cambs are now a joint planning authority. At a very minimum, the Waterbeach SPD should meet the standards specified in policy 28 of the Cambridge City Local plan, which specifies carbon emissions 44% better than part L of 2006 building regs (ie 19% better than current regs) or what used to be known as CSE Code 4 . Note that Code 4 was commonly used as a standard for Social Housing, so this standard supports aspirations to provide affordable and social housing.

Further detailed Guidance for local authorities on achieving sustainability in new homes is given by the UKGBC here https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Driving-sustainability-in-new-homes-UKGBC-resource-Sept-2018-1.pdf

Decarbonisation
Rather than just requiring developers to "think about" providing smart energy systems, the provision Smart Energy systems should be mandatory. The provision and smart management of significant quantities of on-site renewables and storage will be vital for delivering an attractive place to live well before 2030. Given the limited grid capacity in the area, this is already urgent, and it is only likely to become more important as the power grid further decarbonises, and the demand for electric vehicles and electric (or heat pump) space heating and becomes widespread.

Regular review of targets
As Waterbeach will take 25 years to build, we are calling for regular reviews (say every 5 years) to allow targets to be increased in line with government policy, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and science based targets for how to achieve the necessary reduction in carbon emissions.

Mitigating climate related Risks
Even if we all act to reduce Carbon emission as fast as is technically possible, we will face increasingly significant risks from our changing climate. To somewhat mitigate these risks for the inhabitants of Waterbeach, the SPD should set firm standards to require developers avoid overheating during heatwaves, particularly in single aspect south facing flats (for example by providing shading, solar control glazing and through ventilation)

Flood risk also needs serious attention, particularly in the high risk areas to the Eastern part of the development, which includes the strategically important areas surrounding the train stations (current and new).

The response below is as per that ratified by the Economy and Environment Committee of 11th October 2018.
The SPD is supported by the Transport Assessment Team and this section provides key highlights with respect to transport.
There are several aspects of the SPD where the transport objectives and principles will have a significant role in shaping the future development of the New Town. This can be seen in the strategic development objectives of section 3.2, which places strong emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.
Figure 13 sets out the spatial framework plan for the site setting out the key structural elements of the new town. The key transport proposals are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20:
Figure 18 illustrates the primary movement network including the primary and secondary streets, and access points from the surrounding area into the town. The plan makes provision for a mass transit route (for instance, the CAM Metro System proposed by the Combined Authority). This plan also highlights that vehicle access will be tightly managed in the town centre - An approach that removes cars from the town centre would be supported by CCC. The primary streets will be the key movement corridors for walking, cycling, vehicles and buses around the town and will be designed to accommodate these modes appropriately.
Figure 19 illustrates the wider movement network, with the addition of key cycle routes (including the Causeway link), a bus only connection to Waterbeach village, and key walking, cycling and equestrian connections between the town and the surrounding area. The SPD highlights that the walking and cycling network within the town should provide a network of routes that are direct, safe, continuous and attractive. Cycling connections beyond the town to north Cambridge, Landbeach, Chittering, Cottenham, Lode, Horningsea, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park will be required.
CCC would also seek that the use of walking and cycling should be encouraged through the availability and design of cross town cycle routes, which would link all parts of the town, particularly the railway station. Whilst this is shown in Figure 19, this should be strengthened to enable cross town cycle and pedestrian movements over and above cross town vehicle movements. CCC have previously discussed with SCDC the potential for a perimeter vehicle route around the town, with each residential area to be self contained and only accessible by vehicle from the perimeter road. There is potential to favour cross town walking and cycling links by limiting cross town vehicle movements between residential areas. This is similar to the Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme which limits the ability for cross town vehicle movement. Consequently, the SPD layout and primary road plan should be amended to allow for the perimeter road, and with secondary roads serving self contained residential areas only.
Figure 20 shows the key public transport framework for the town including the relocated railway station, park and ride locations, bus friendly routes, and key public transport connections from the town to the surrounding area. This shows a potential public transport only link between the railway station, through the town centre and towards Cambridge, and safeguards a second public transport route between Waterbeach village and Cambridge Research Park.
Table 8 summarises the key infrastructure that will be required. A key aspect of the transport infrastructure for the new town is the relocated railway station. Table 8 notes that this should come forward at an early stage in the development, with its trigger to be set by the Transport Assessments submitted with both applications for the new town. Work is ongoing with both applicants on this trigger, with the emphasis being that this facility and associated access road should be provided as early as practicably possible within the development.
The SPD also highlights the key findings of the Ely to Cambridge Study strand 2 report. The SPD makes it clear that the full development of Waterbeach is critically dependent on the strategic solutions relating to this study.
The key infrastructure required for the town is set out in the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan in section 6. For transport this sets out the key infrastructure that will form the basis of a heads of terms for the S106 agreements for each outline application.
Additional references should be made in the SPD with regards to locating primary schools away from primary streets, and areas with higher air and noise pollution, but still with vehicle access for teaching staff. Reference should be made to the need for the location of bicycle parking close to dwellings which is easy to use to encourage the use of bicycles rather than vehicles.
Public Rights of Way Team Comments
The Public Rights of Way team in addition have the following comments. These require consideration and inclusion of the needs of PROW's within the SPD text and are also provided separately.
The redevelopment of Waterbeach Barracks provides an opportunity to connect and enhance the existing rights of way network that has been hindered by the presence of restricted MOD land for many decades. We welcome the outline proposals to create good pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they are in accordance with the requirements of the County Council's adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities and the existing Rights of Way network. Providing improved non-motorised user (NMU) infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the SPD, including equestrian users. We therefore object to the SPD as it currently stands.
We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before first occupation and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where occupation of dwellings took place before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This was supported by a report entitled 'Lessons From Cambourne' in 2007 that stated:
"There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction."
We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advance of any occupation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the SPD has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all equestrian users, choosing rather to make reference to 'Walking and Cycleway' links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision.
General principles
The County Council's adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which prioritise specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
The relevant SOAs in this instance include:
* SOA2 (5) 'Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.'
* SOA3 (1) 'Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.'
* SOA3 (3) 'Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.'
* SOA5 (3) 'Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.'
The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Waterbeach Barracks development. The provision of bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
Whilst there are no recorded public rights of way which cross the development site, we wish to draw your attention to the following points:
* Public rights of way are highways that must remain open and unobstructed at all times, including during site construction. Building materials must not be stored on the public rights of way and contractors' vehicles must not be parked on them (it is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct a public right of way). A Code of Construction methodology must be agreed with the County Council's Highways Team for any rights of way affected. A methodology was successfully implemented for the development of Greater and Upper Cambourne. Please see the attached document summarising the methodology and the Cambourne Design Guide for reference.
* No alteration to the surface of rights of way is permitted without our consent (it is an offence to damage the surface of a highway under s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971).
* Landowners are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain hedges and fences adjacent to public rights of way, and that any transfer of land should account for any such boundaries (s154 Highways Act 1980).
* The granting of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a public right of way (Circular 1/09 para 7.1).
* Legal orders to realign or create public rights of way take time and therefore need to be carefully programmed in well in advance to ensure that development can take place as planned. We would request that the developer sets up regular communications with the Asset Information Team to ensure the optimum outcome for this element of the development.
* The local communities should be kept informed as to proposed changes to the network, including any temporary closures that are necessary, as objections can significantly delay progress.
* The development should not only protect existing NMU highways (footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc.) but should enhance them wherever possible. This should include an aspiration to not only improve NMU movement (including pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists) within the urban area not also to facilitate easy and convenient access into the countryside.
Request for improvements to the Rights of Way network
The improvements listed below would allow the communities of Waterbeach and the new development to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Cottenham, Lode, Wicken and Reach. These improvements when connected to the developer's proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to follow a longer recreational route beyond Waterbeach. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield, in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured by direct implementation through the use of a Grampian condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations.
* The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the SPD be amended to include more PROW along the lines suggested.
* The PRoW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans.
* New links should be provided to surrounding villages to the east and in particular Lode Public Footpath No. 4 which should be upgraded to Bridleway status to reflect its current and likely future usage. This would improve links to Lode from Waterbeach and enable use of the route by pedal cycles and equestrians.
* A Non-Motorised User (NMU) link towards Wicken Fen and Lode should be provided by a new or improved crossing of the River Cam. The crossing point should be suitable for all NMU users' especially equestrian users. This is currently a major barrier to east-west NMU links across the surrounding area and the delivery of a major piece of NMU infrastructure should be promoted when assessing the permeability of a development scheme of this size.
* Public Byway No. 14 (Bannold Drove) should be incorporated into the proposed site layout and improved as a green corridor route. The legal status of the route will require amending to reflect any change in the type of user the route is proposed to accommodate. - The applicant should be required to submit a scheme detailing the proposal for Bannold Drove, and how this is be achieved with a legal change in status by relevant condition.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and Denny Abbey, Chittering and Stretham to the north. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Footpath No. 15 for which an improvement to Bridleway status would be welcomed to ensure vulnerable users like cyclists and equestrians can travel safely between the development and locations to the north.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and the nearby villages of Cottenham, Rampton and Landbeach. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Bridleways No. 1 and 2.
* It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site, especially along the north boundary of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the Waterbeach New Town development. This is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne.
* A suitable S106 package should be agreed to enable the County Council to deliver mitigation measures and enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network where appropriate. The current picture is one of fragmented and inconvenient footpaths, with very few bridleways or restricted byways which enable wider access to and use of the countryside. There is also very poor linkage to the west of the River Cam and east towards Wicken Fen which should be addressed as part of this application.
The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and the general standards that would be applied on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and legal status. This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 Agreement or Grampian condition.
The County Council's Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore objects to the SPD for the reasons cited above. The County Council requests that the above changes are made to the SPD.
The County Council's Definitive Map team are happy to assist the District Council in their understanding of the needs and aspirations for the Public Rights of Way/NMU route network in this area. If you would like to discuss this objection with them, please contact James Stringer on James.Stringer@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The response below is as per that ratified by the Economy and Environment Committee of 11th October 2018.
The SPD is supported by the Transport Assessment Team and this section provides key highlights with respect to transport.
There are several aspects of the SPD where the transport objectives and principles will have a significant role in shaping the future development of the New Town. This can be seen in the strategic development objectives of section 3.2, which places strong emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.
Figure 13 sets out the spatial framework plan for the site setting out the key structural elements of the new town. The key transport proposals are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20:
Figure 18 illustrates the primary movement network including the primary and secondary streets, and access points from the surrounding area into the town. The plan makes provision for a mass transit route (for instance, the CAM Metro System proposed by the Combined Authority). This plan also highlights that vehicle access will be tightly managed in the town centre - An approach that removes cars from the town centre would be supported by CCC. The primary streets will be the key movement corridors for walking, cycling, vehicles and buses around the town and will be designed to accommodate these modes appropriately.
Figure 19 illustrates the wider movement network, with the addition of key cycle routes (including the Causeway link), a bus only connection to Waterbeach village, and key walking, cycling and equestrian connections between the town and the surrounding area. The SPD highlights that the walking and cycling network within the town should provide a network of routes that are direct, safe, continuous and attractive. Cycling connections beyond the town to north Cambridge, Landbeach, Chittering, Cottenham, Lode, Horningsea, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park will be required.
CCC would also seek that the use of walking and cycling should be encouraged through the availability and design of cross town cycle routes, which would link all parts of the town, particularly the railway station. Whilst this is shown in Figure 19, this should be strengthened to enable cross town cycle and pedestrian movements over and above cross town vehicle movements. CCC have previously discussed with SCDC the potential for a perimeter vehicle route around the town, with each residential area to be self contained and only accessible by vehicle from the perimeter road. There is potential to favour cross town walking and cycling links by limiting cross town vehicle movements between residential areas. This is similar to the Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme which limits the ability for cross town vehicle movement. Consequently, the SPD layout and primary road plan should be amended to allow for the perimeter road, and with secondary roads serving self contained residential areas only.
Figure 20 shows the key public transport framework for the town including the relocated railway station, park and ride locations, bus friendly routes, and key public transport connections from the town to the surrounding area. This shows a potential public transport only link between the railway station, through the town centre and towards Cambridge, and safeguards a second public transport route between Waterbeach village and Cambridge Research Park.
Table 8 summarises the key infrastructure that will be required. A key aspect of the transport infrastructure for the new town is the relocated railway station. Table 8 notes that this should come forward at an early stage in the development, with its trigger to be set by the Transport Assessments submitted with both applications for the new town. Work is ongoing with both applicants on this trigger, with the emphasis being that this facility and associated access road should be provided as early as practicably possible within the development.
The SPD also highlights the key findings of the Ely to Cambridge Study strand 2 report. The SPD makes it clear that the full development of Waterbeach is critically dependent on the strategic solutions relating to this study.
The key infrastructure required for the town is set out in the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan in section 6. For transport this sets out the key infrastructure that will form the basis of a heads of terms for the S106 agreements for each outline application.
Additional references should be made in the SPD with regards to locating primary schools away from primary streets, and areas with higher air and noise pollution, but still with vehicle access for teaching staff. Reference should be made to the need for the location of bicycle parking close to dwellings which is easy to use to encourage the use of bicycles rather than vehicles.
Public Rights of Way Team Comments
The Public Rights of Way team in addition have the following comments. These require consideration and inclusion of the needs of PROW's within the SPD text and are also provided separately.
The redevelopment of Waterbeach Barracks provides an opportunity to connect and enhance the existing rights of way network that has been hindered by the presence of restricted MOD land for many decades. We welcome the outline proposals to create good pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they are in accordance with the requirements of the County Council's adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities and the existing Rights of Way network. Providing improved non-motorised user (NMU) infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the SPD, including equestrian users. We therefore object to the SPD as it currently stands.
We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before first occupation and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where occupation of dwellings took place before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This was supported by a report entitled 'Lessons From Cambourne' in 2007 that stated:
"There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction."
We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advance of any occupation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the SPD has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all equestrian users, choosing rather to make reference to 'Walking and Cycleway' links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision.
General principles
The County Council's adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which prioritise specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
The relevant SOAs in this instance include:
* SOA2 (5) 'Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.'
* SOA3 (1) 'Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.'
* SOA3 (3) 'Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.'
* SOA5 (3) 'Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.'
The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Waterbeach Barracks development. The provision of bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
Whilst there are no recorded public rights of way which cross the development site, we wish to draw your attention to the following points:
* Public rights of way are highways that must remain open and unobstructed at all times, including during site construction. Building materials must not be stored on the public rights of way and contractors' vehicles must not be parked on them (it is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct a public right of way). A Code of Construction methodology must be agreed with the County Council's Highways Team for any rights of way affected. A methodology was successfully implemented for the development of Greater and Upper Cambourne. Please see the attached document summarising the methodology and the Cambourne Design Guide for reference.
* No alteration to the surface of rights of way is permitted without our consent (it is an offence to damage the surface of a highway under s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971).
* Landowners are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain hedges and fences adjacent to public rights of way, and that any transfer of land should account for any such boundaries (s154 Highways Act 1980).
* The granting of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a public right of way (Circular 1/09 para 7.1).
* Legal orders to realign or create public rights of way take time and therefore need to be carefully programmed in well in advance to ensure that development can take place as planned. We would request that the developer sets up regular communications with the Asset Information Team to ensure the optimum outcome for this element of the development.
* The local communities should be kept informed as to proposed changes to the network, including any temporary closures that are necessary, as objections can significantly delay progress.
* The development should not only protect existing NMU highways (footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc.) but should enhance them wherever possible. This should include an aspiration to not only improve NMU movement (including pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists) within the urban area not also to facilitate easy and convenient access into the countryside.
Request for improvements to the Rights of Way network
The improvements listed below would allow the communities of Waterbeach and the new development to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Cottenham, Lode, Wicken and Reach. These improvements when connected to the developer's proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to follow a longer recreational route beyond Waterbeach. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield, in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured by direct implementation through the use of a Grampian condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations.
* The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the SPD be amended to include more PROW along the lines suggested.
* The PRoW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans.
* New links should be provided to surrounding villages to the east and in particular Lode Public Footpath No. 4 which should be upgraded to Bridleway status to reflect its current and likely future usage. This would improve links to Lode from Waterbeach and enable use of the route by pedal cycles and equestrians.
* A Non-Motorised User (NMU) link towards Wicken Fen and Lode should be provided by a new or improved crossing of the River Cam. The crossing point should be suitable for all NMU users' especially equestrian users. This is currently a major barrier to east-west NMU links across the surrounding area and the delivery of a major piece of NMU infrastructure should be promoted when assessing the permeability of a development scheme of this size.
* Public Byway No. 14 (Bannold Drove) should be incorporated into the proposed site layout and improved as a green corridor route. The legal status of the route will require amending to reflect any change in the type of user the route is proposed to accommodate. - The applicant should be required to submit a scheme detailing the proposal for Bannold Drove, and how this is be achieved with a legal change in status by relevant condition.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and Denny Abbey, Chittering and Stretham to the north. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Footpath No. 15 for which an improvement to Bridleway status would be welcomed to ensure vulnerable users like cyclists and equestrians can travel safely between the development and locations to the north.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and the nearby villages of Cottenham, Rampton and Landbeach. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Bridleways No. 1 and 2.
* It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site, especially along the north boundary of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the Waterbeach New Town development. This is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne.
* A suitable S106 package should be agreed to enable the County Council to deliver mitigation measures and enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network where appropriate. The current picture is one of fragmented and inconvenient footpaths, with very few bridleways or restricted byways which enable wider access to and use of the countryside. There is also very poor linkage to the west of the River Cam and east towards Wicken Fen which should be addressed as part of this application.
The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and the general standards that would be applied on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and legal status. This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 Agreement or Grampian condition.
The County Council's Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore objects to the SPD for the reasons cited above. The County Council requests that the above changes are made to the SPD.
The County Council's Definitive Map team are happy to assist the District Council in their understanding of the needs and aspirations for the Public Rights of Way/NMU route network in this area. If you would like to discuss this objection with them, please contact James Stringer on James.Stringer@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The response below is as per that ratified by the Economy and Environment Committee of 11th October 2018.
The SPD is supported by the Transport Assessment Team and this section provides key highlights with respect to transport.
There are several aspects of the SPD where the transport objectives and principles will have a significant role in shaping the future development of the New Town. This can be seen in the strategic development objectives of section 3.2, which places strong emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.
Figure 13 sets out the spatial framework plan for the site setting out the key structural elements of the new town. The key transport proposals are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20:
Figure 18 illustrates the primary movement network including the primary and secondary streets, and access points from the surrounding area into the town. The plan makes provision for a mass transit route (for instance, the CAM Metro System proposed by the Combined Authority). This plan also highlights that vehicle access will be tightly managed in the town centre - An approach that removes cars from the town centre would be supported by CCC. The primary streets will be the key movement corridors for walking, cycling, vehicles and buses around the town and will be designed to accommodate these modes appropriately.
Figure 19 illustrates the wider movement network, with the addition of key cycle routes (including the Causeway link), a bus only connection to Waterbeach village, and key walking, cycling and equestrian connections between the town and the surrounding area. The SPD highlights that the walking and cycling network within the town should provide a network of routes that are direct, safe, continuous and attractive. Cycling connections beyond the town to north Cambridge, Landbeach, Chittering, Cottenham, Lode, Horningsea, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park will be required.
CCC would also seek that the use of walking and cycling should be encouraged through the availability and design of cross town cycle routes, which would link all parts of the town, particularly the railway station. Whilst this is shown in Figure 19, this should be strengthened to enable cross town cycle and pedestrian movements over and above cross town vehicle movements. CCC have previously discussed with SCDC the potential for a perimeter vehicle route around the town, with each residential area to be self contained and only accessible by vehicle from the perimeter road. There is potential to favour cross town walking and cycling links by limiting cross town vehicle movements between residential areas. This is similar to the Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme which limits the ability for cross town vehicle movement. Consequently, the SPD layout and primary road plan should be amended to allow for the perimeter road, and with secondary roads serving self contained residential areas only.
Figure 20 shows the key public transport framework for the town including the relocated railway station, park and ride locations, bus friendly routes, and key public transport connections from the town to the surrounding area. This shows a potential public transport only link between the railway station, through the town centre and towards Cambridge, and safeguards a second public transport route between Waterbeach village and Cambridge Research Park.
Table 8 summarises the key infrastructure that will be required. A key aspect of the transport infrastructure for the new town is the relocated railway station. Table 8 notes that this should come forward at an early stage in the development, with its trigger to be set by the Transport Assessments submitted with both applications for the new town. Work is ongoing with both applicants on this trigger, with the emphasis being that this facility and associated access road should be provided as early as practicably possible within the development.
The SPD also highlights the key findings of the Ely to Cambridge Study strand 2 report. The SPD makes it clear that the full development of Waterbeach is critically dependent on the strategic solutions relating to this study.
The key infrastructure required for the town is set out in the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan in section 6. For transport this sets out the key infrastructure that will form the basis of a heads of terms for the S106 agreements for each outline application.
Additional references should be made in the SPD with regards to locating primary schools away from primary streets, and areas with higher air and noise pollution, but still with vehicle access for teaching staff. Reference should be made to the need for the location of bicycle parking close to dwellings which is easy to use to encourage the use of bicycles rather than vehicles.
Public Rights of Way Team Comments
The Public Rights of Way team in addition have the following comments. These require consideration and inclusion of the needs of PROW's within the SPD text and are also provided separately.
The redevelopment of Waterbeach Barracks provides an opportunity to connect and enhance the existing rights of way network that has been hindered by the presence of restricted MOD land for many decades. We welcome the outline proposals to create good pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they are in accordance with the requirements of the County Council's adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities and the existing Rights of Way network. Providing improved non-motorised user (NMU) infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the SPD, including equestrian users. We therefore object to the SPD as it currently stands.
We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before first occupation and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where occupation of dwellings took place before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This was supported by a report entitled 'Lessons From Cambourne' in 2007 that stated:
"There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction."
We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advance of any occupation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the SPD has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all equestrian users, choosing rather to make reference to 'Walking and Cycleway' links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision.
General principles
The County Council's adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which prioritise specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
The relevant SOAs in this instance include:
* SOA2 (5) 'Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.'
* SOA3 (1) 'Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.'
* SOA3 (3) 'Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.'
* SOA5 (3) 'Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.'
The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Waterbeach Barracks development. The provision of bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
Whilst there are no recorded public rights of way which cross the development site, we wish to draw your attention to the following points:
* Public rights of way are highways that must remain open and unobstructed at all times, including during site construction. Building materials must not be stored on the public rights of way and contractors' vehicles must not be parked on them (it is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct a public right of way). A Code of Construction methodology must be agreed with the County Council's Highways Team for any rights of way affected. A methodology was successfully implemented for the development of Greater and Upper Cambourne. Please see the attached document summarising the methodology and the Cambourne Design Guide for reference.
* No alteration to the surface of rights of way is permitted without our consent (it is an offence to damage the surface of a highway under s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971).
* Landowners are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain hedges and fences adjacent to public rights of way, and that any transfer of land should account for any such boundaries (s154 Highways Act 1980).
* The granting of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a public right of way (Circular 1/09 para 7.1).
* Legal orders to realign or create public rights of way take time and therefore need to be carefully programmed in well in advance to ensure that development can take place as planned. We would request that the developer sets up regular communications with the Asset Information Team to ensure the optimum outcome for this element of the development.
* The local communities should be kept informed as to proposed changes to the network, including any temporary closures that are necessary, as objections can significantly delay progress.
* The development should not only protect existing NMU highways (footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc.) but should enhance them wherever possible. This should include an aspiration to not only improve NMU movement (including pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists) within the urban area not also to facilitate easy and convenient access into the countryside.
Request for improvements to the Rights of Way network
The improvements listed below would allow the communities of Waterbeach and the new development to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Cottenham, Lode, Wicken and Reach. These improvements when connected to the developer's proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to follow a longer recreational route beyond Waterbeach. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield, in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured by direct implementation through the use of a Grampian condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations.
* The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the SPD be amended to include more PROW along the lines suggested.
* The PRoW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans.
* New links should be provided to surrounding villages to the east and in particular Lode Public Footpath No. 4 which should be upgraded to Bridleway status to reflect its current and likely future usage. This would improve links to Lode from Waterbeach and enable use of the route by pedal cycles and equestrians.
* A Non-Motorised User (NMU) link towards Wicken Fen and Lode should be provided by a new or improved crossing of the River Cam. The crossing point should be suitable for all NMU users' especially equestrian users. This is currently a major barrier to east-west NMU links across the surrounding area and the delivery of a major piece of NMU infrastructure should be promoted when assessing the permeability of a development scheme of this size.
* Public Byway No. 14 (Bannold Drove) should be incorporated into the proposed site layout and improved as a green corridor route. The legal status of the route will require amending to reflect any change in the type of user the route is proposed to accommodate. - The applicant should be required to submit a scheme detailing the proposal for Bannold Drove, and how this is be achieved with a legal change in status by relevant condition.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and Denny Abbey, Chittering and Stretham to the north. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Footpath No. 15 for which an improvement to Bridleway status would be welcomed to ensure vulnerable users like cyclists and equestrians can travel safely between the development and locations to the north.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and the nearby villages of Cottenham, Rampton and Landbeach. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Bridleways No. 1 and 2.
* It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site, especially along the north boundary of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the Waterbeach New Town development. This is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne.
* A suitable S106 package should be agreed to enable the County Council to deliver mitigation measures and enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network where appropriate. The current picture is one of fragmented and inconvenient footpaths, with very few bridleways or restricted byways which enable wider access to and use of the countryside. There is also very poor linkage to the west of the River Cam and east towards Wicken Fen which should be addressed as part of this application.
The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and the general standards that would be applied on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and legal status. This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 Agreement or Grampian condition.
The County Council's Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore objects to the SPD for the reasons cited above. The County Council requests that the above changes are made to the SPD.
The County Council's Definitive Map team are happy to assist the District Council in their understanding of the needs and aspirations for the Public Rights of Way/NMU route network in this area. If you would like to discuss this objection with them, please contact James Stringer on James.Stringer@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The response below is as per that ratified by the Economy and Environment Committee of 11th October 2018.
The SPD is supported by the Transport Assessment Team and this section provides key highlights with respect to transport.
There are several aspects of the SPD where the transport objectives and principles will have a significant role in shaping the future development of the New Town. This can be seen in the strategic development objectives of section 3.2, which places strong emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.
Figure 13 sets out the spatial framework plan for the site setting out the key structural elements of the new town. The key transport proposals are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20:
Figure 18 illustrates the primary movement network including the primary and secondary streets, and access points from the surrounding area into the town. The plan makes provision for a mass transit route (for instance, the CAM Metro System proposed by the Combined Authority). This plan also highlights that vehicle access will be tightly managed in the town centre - An approach that removes cars from the town centre would be supported by CCC. The primary streets will be the key movement corridors for walking, cycling, vehicles and buses around the town and will be designed to accommodate these modes appropriately.
Figure 19 illustrates the wider movement network, with the addition of key cycle routes (including the Causeway link), a bus only connection to Waterbeach village, and key walking, cycling and equestrian connections between the town and the surrounding area. The SPD highlights that the walking and cycling network within the town should provide a network of routes that are direct, safe, continuous and attractive. Cycling connections beyond the town to north Cambridge, Landbeach, Chittering, Cottenham, Lode, Horningsea, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park will be required.
CCC would also seek that the use of walking and cycling should be encouraged through the availability and design of cross town cycle routes, which would link all parts of the town, particularly the railway station. Whilst this is shown in Figure 19, this should be strengthened to enable cross town cycle and pedestrian movements over and above cross town vehicle movements. CCC have previously discussed with SCDC the potential for a perimeter vehicle route around the town, with each residential area to be self contained and only accessible by vehicle from the perimeter road. There is potential to favour cross town walking and cycling links by limiting cross town vehicle movements between residential areas. This is similar to the Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme which limits the ability for cross town vehicle movement. Consequently, the SPD layout and primary road plan should be amended to allow for the perimeter road, and with secondary roads serving self contained residential areas only.
Figure 20 shows the key public transport framework for the town including the relocated railway station, park and ride locations, bus friendly routes, and key public transport connections from the town to the surrounding area. This shows a potential public transport only link between the railway station, through the town centre and towards Cambridge, and safeguards a second public transport route between Waterbeach village and Cambridge Research Park.
Table 8 summarises the key infrastructure that will be required. A key aspect of the transport infrastructure for the new town is the relocated railway station. Table 8 notes that this should come forward at an early stage in the development, with its trigger to be set by the Transport Assessments submitted with both applications for the new town. Work is ongoing with both applicants on this trigger, with the emphasis being that this facility and associated access road should be provided as early as practicably possible within the development.
The SPD also highlights the key findings of the Ely to Cambridge Study strand 2 report. The SPD makes it clear that the full development of Waterbeach is critically dependent on the strategic solutions relating to this study.
The key infrastructure required for the town is set out in the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan in section 6. For transport this sets out the key infrastructure that will form the basis of a heads of terms for the S106 agreements for each outline application.
Additional references should be made in the SPD with regards to locating primary schools away from primary streets, and areas with higher air and noise pollution, but still with vehicle access for teaching staff. Reference should be made to the need for the location of bicycle parking close to dwellings which is easy to use to encourage the use of bicycles rather than vehicles.
Public Rights of Way Team Comments
The Public Rights of Way team in addition have the following comments. These require consideration and inclusion of the needs of PROW's within the SPD text and are also provided separately.
The redevelopment of Waterbeach Barracks provides an opportunity to connect and enhance the existing rights of way network that has been hindered by the presence of restricted MOD land for many decades. We welcome the outline proposals to create good pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they are in accordance with the requirements of the County Council's adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities and the existing Rights of Way network. Providing improved non-motorised user (NMU) infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the SPD, including equestrian users. We therefore object to the SPD as it currently stands.
We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before first occupation and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where occupation of dwellings took place before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This was supported by a report entitled 'Lessons From Cambourne' in 2007 that stated:
"There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction."
We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advance of any occupation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the SPD has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all equestrian users, choosing rather to make reference to 'Walking and Cycleway' links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision.
General principles
The County Council's adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which prioritise specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
The relevant SOAs in this instance include:
* SOA2 (5) 'Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.'
* SOA3 (1) 'Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.'
* SOA3 (3) 'Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.'
* SOA5 (3) 'Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.'
The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Waterbeach Barracks development. The provision of bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
Whilst there are no recorded public rights of way which cross the development site, we wish to draw your attention to the following points:
* Public rights of way are highways that must remain open and unobstructed at all times, including during site construction. Building materials must not be stored on the public rights of way and contractors' vehicles must not be parked on them (it is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct a public right of way). A Code of Construction methodology must be agreed with the County Council's Highways Team for any rights of way affected. A methodology was successfully implemented for the development of Greater and Upper Cambourne. Please see the attached document summarising the methodology and the Cambourne Design Guide for reference.
* No alteration to the surface of rights of way is permitted without our consent (it is an offence to damage the surface of a highway under s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971).
* Landowners are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain hedges and fences adjacent to public rights of way, and that any transfer of land should account for any such boundaries (s154 Highways Act 1980).
* The granting of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a public right of way (Circular 1/09 para 7.1).
* Legal orders to realign or create public rights of way take time and therefore need to be carefully programmed in well in advance to ensure that development can take place as planned. We would request that the developer sets up regular communications with the Asset Information Team to ensure the optimum outcome for this element of the development.
* The local communities should be kept informed as to proposed changes to the network, including any temporary closures that are necessary, as objections can significantly delay progress.
* The development should not only protect existing NMU highways (footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc.) but should enhance them wherever possible. This should include an aspiration to not only improve NMU movement (including pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists) within the urban area not also to facilitate easy and convenient access into the countryside.
Request for improvements to the Rights of Way network
The improvements listed below would allow the communities of Waterbeach and the new development to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Cottenham, Lode, Wicken and Reach. These improvements when connected to the developer's proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to follow a longer recreational route beyond Waterbeach. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield, in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured by direct implementation through the use of a Grampian condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations.
* The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the SPD be amended to include more PROW along the lines suggested.
* The PRoW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans.
* New links should be provided to surrounding villages to the east and in particular Lode Public Footpath No. 4 which should be upgraded to Bridleway status to reflect its current and likely future usage. This would improve links to Lode from Waterbeach and enable use of the route by pedal cycles and equestrians.
* A Non-Motorised User (NMU) link towards Wicken Fen and Lode should be provided by a new or improved crossing of the River Cam. The crossing point should be suitable for all NMU users' especially equestrian users. This is currently a major barrier to east-west NMU links across the surrounding area and the delivery of a major piece of NMU infrastructure should be promoted when assessing the permeability of a development scheme of this size.
* Public Byway No. 14 (Bannold Drove) should be incorporated into the proposed site layout and improved as a green corridor route. The legal status of the route will require amending to reflect any change in the type of user the route is proposed to accommodate. - The applicant should be required to submit a scheme detailing the proposal for Bannold Drove, and how this is be achieved with a legal change in status by relevant condition.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and Denny Abbey, Chittering and Stretham to the north. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Footpath No. 15 for which an improvement to Bridleway status would be welcomed to ensure vulnerable users like cyclists and equestrians can travel safely between the development and locations to the north.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and the nearby villages of Cottenham, Rampton and Landbeach. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Bridleways No. 1 and 2.
* It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site, especially along the north boundary of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the Waterbeach New Town development. This is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne.
* A suitable S106 package should be agreed to enable the County Council to deliver mitigation measures and enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network where appropriate. The current picture is one of fragmented and inconvenient footpaths, with very few bridleways or restricted byways which enable wider access to and use of the countryside. There is also very poor linkage to the west of the River Cam and east towards Wicken Fen which should be addressed as part of this application.
The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and the general standards that would be applied on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and legal status. This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 Agreement or Grampian condition.
The County Council's Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore objects to the SPD for the reasons cited above. The County Council requests that the above changes are made to the SPD.
The County Council's Definitive Map team are happy to assist the District Council in their understanding of the needs and aspirations for the Public Rights of Way/NMU route network in this area. If you would like to discuss this objection with them, please contact James Stringer on James.Stringer@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The response below is as per that ratified by the Economy and Environment Committee of 11th October 2018.
The SPD is supported by the Transport Assessment Team and this section provides key highlights with respect to transport.
There are several aspects of the SPD where the transport objectives and principles will have a significant role in shaping the future development of the New Town. This can be seen in the strategic development objectives of section 3.2, which places strong emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.
Figure 13 sets out the spatial framework plan for the site setting out the key structural elements of the new town. The key transport proposals are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20:
Figure 18 illustrates the primary movement network including the primary and secondary streets, and access points from the surrounding area into the town. The plan makes provision for a mass transit route (for instance, the CAM Metro System proposed by the Combined Authority). This plan also highlights that vehicle access will be tightly managed in the town centre - An approach that removes cars from the town centre would be supported by CCC. The primary streets will be the key movement corridors for walking, cycling, vehicles and buses around the town and will be designed to accommodate these modes appropriately.
Figure 19 illustrates the wider movement network, with the addition of key cycle routes (including the Causeway link), a bus only connection to Waterbeach village, and key walking, cycling and equestrian connections between the town and the surrounding area. The SPD highlights that the walking and cycling network within the town should provide a network of routes that are direct, safe, continuous and attractive. Cycling connections beyond the town to north Cambridge, Landbeach, Chittering, Cottenham, Lode, Horningsea, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park will be required.
CCC would also seek that the use of walking and cycling should be encouraged through the availability and design of cross town cycle routes, which would link all parts of the town, particularly the railway station. Whilst this is shown in Figure 19, this should be strengthened to enable cross town cycle and pedestrian movements over and above cross town vehicle movements. CCC have previously discussed with SCDC the potential for a perimeter vehicle route around the town, with each residential area to be self contained and only accessible by vehicle from the perimeter road. There is potential to favour cross town walking and cycling links by limiting cross town vehicle movements between residential areas. This is similar to the Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme which limits the ability for cross town vehicle movement. Consequently, the SPD layout and primary road plan should be amended to allow for the perimeter road, and with secondary roads serving self contained residential areas only.
Figure 20 shows the key public transport framework for the town including the relocated railway station, park and ride locations, bus friendly routes, and key public transport connections from the town to the surrounding area. This shows a potential public transport only link between the railway station, through the town centre and towards Cambridge, and safeguards a second public transport route between Waterbeach village and Cambridge Research Park.
Table 8 summarises the key infrastructure that will be required. A key aspect of the transport infrastructure for the new town is the relocated railway station. Table 8 notes that this should come forward at an early stage in the development, with its trigger to be set by the Transport Assessments submitted with both applications for the new town. Work is ongoing with both applicants on this trigger, with the emphasis being that this facility and associated access road should be provided as early as practicably possible within the development.
The SPD also highlights the key findings of the Ely to Cambridge Study strand 2 report. The SPD makes it clear that the full development of Waterbeach is critically dependent on the strategic solutions relating to this study.
The key infrastructure required for the town is set out in the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan in section 6. For transport this sets out the key infrastructure that will form the basis of a heads of terms for the S106 agreements for each outline application.
Additional references should be made in the SPD with regards to locating primary schools away from primary streets, and areas with higher air and noise pollution, but still with vehicle access for teaching staff. Reference should be made to the need for the location of bicycle parking close to dwellings which is easy to use to encourage the use of bicycles rather than vehicles.
Public Rights of Way Team Comments
The Public Rights of Way team in addition have the following comments. These require consideration and inclusion of the needs of PROW's within the SPD text and are also provided separately.
The redevelopment of Waterbeach Barracks provides an opportunity to connect and enhance the existing rights of way network that has been hindered by the presence of restricted MOD land for many decades. We welcome the outline proposals to create good pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they are in accordance with the requirements of the County Council's adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities and the existing Rights of Way network. Providing improved non-motorised user (NMU) infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the SPD, including equestrian users. We therefore object to the SPD as it currently stands.
We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before first occupation and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where occupation of dwellings took place before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This was supported by a report entitled 'Lessons From Cambourne' in 2007 that stated:
"There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction."
We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advance of any occupation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the SPD has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all equestrian users, choosing rather to make reference to 'Walking and Cycleway' links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision.
General principles
The County Council's adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which prioritise specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
The relevant SOAs in this instance include:
* SOA2 (5) 'Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.'
* SOA3 (1) 'Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.'
* SOA3 (3) 'Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.'
* SOA5 (3) 'Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.'
The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Waterbeach Barracks development. The provision of bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
Whilst there are no recorded public rights of way which cross the development site, we wish to draw your attention to the following points:
* Public rights of way are highways that must remain open and unobstructed at all times, including during site construction. Building materials must not be stored on the public rights of way and contractors' vehicles must not be parked on them (it is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct a public right of way). A Code of Construction methodology must be agreed with the County Council's Highways Team for any rights of way affected. A methodology was successfully implemented for the development of Greater and Upper Cambourne. Please see the attached document summarising the methodology and the Cambourne Design Guide for reference.
* No alteration to the surface of rights of way is permitted without our consent (it is an offence to damage the surface of a highway under s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971).
* Landowners are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain hedges and fences adjacent to public rights of way, and that any transfer of land should account for any such boundaries (s154 Highways Act 1980).
* The granting of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a public right of way (Circular 1/09 para 7.1).
* Legal orders to realign or create public rights of way take time and therefore need to be carefully programmed in well in advance to ensure that development can take place as planned. We would request that the developer sets up regular communications with the Asset Information Team to ensure the optimum outcome for this element of the development.
* The local communities should be kept informed as to proposed changes to the network, including any temporary closures that are necessary, as objections can significantly delay progress.
* The development should not only protect existing NMU highways (footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc.) but should enhance them wherever possible. This should include an aspiration to not only improve NMU movement (including pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists) within the urban area not also to facilitate easy and convenient access into the countryside.
Request for improvements to the Rights of Way network
The improvements listed below would allow the communities of Waterbeach and the new development to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Cottenham, Lode, Wicken and Reach. These improvements when connected to the developer's proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to follow a longer recreational route beyond Waterbeach. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield, in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured by direct implementation through the use of a Grampian condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations.
* The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the SPD be amended to include more PROW along the lines suggested.
* The PRoW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans.
* New links should be provided to surrounding villages to the east and in particular Lode Public Footpath No. 4 which should be upgraded to Bridleway status to reflect its current and likely future usage. This would improve links to Lode from Waterbeach and enable use of the route by pedal cycles and equestrians.
* A Non-Motorised User (NMU) link towards Wicken Fen and Lode should be provided by a new or improved crossing of the River Cam. The crossing point should be suitable for all NMU users' especially equestrian users. This is currently a major barrier to east-west NMU links across the surrounding area and the delivery of a major piece of NMU infrastructure should be promoted when assessing the permeability of a development scheme of this size.
* Public Byway No. 14 (Bannold Drove) should be incorporated into the proposed site layout and improved as a green corridor route. The legal status of the route will require amending to reflect any change in the type of user the route is proposed to accommodate. - The applicant should be required to submit a scheme detailing the proposal for Bannold Drove, and how this is be achieved with a legal change in status by relevant condition.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and Denny Abbey, Chittering and Stretham to the north. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Footpath No. 15 for which an improvement to Bridleway status would be welcomed to ensure vulnerable users like cyclists and equestrians can travel safely between the development and locations to the north.
* Additional NMU links should be provided to enable non-motorised users to travel between the new development and the nearby villages of Cottenham, Rampton and Landbeach. This may involve enhancing the existing Public Bridleways No. 1 and 2.
* It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site, especially along the north boundary of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the Waterbeach New Town development. This is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne.
* A suitable S106 package should be agreed to enable the County Council to deliver mitigation measures and enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network where appropriate. The current picture is one of fragmented and inconvenient footpaths, with very few bridleways or restricted byways which enable wider access to and use of the countryside. There is also very poor linkage to the west of the River Cam and east towards Wicken Fen which should be addressed as part of this application.
The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and the general standards that would be applied on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and legal status. This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 Agreement or Grampian condition.
The County Council's Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore objects to the SPD for the reasons cited above. The County Council requests that the above changes are made to the SPD.
The County Council's Definitive Map team are happy to assist the District Council in their understanding of the needs and aspirations for the Public Rights of Way/NMU route network in this area. If you would like to discuss this objection with them, please contact James Stringer on James.Stringer@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

Response to SPD consultation
First of all I am concerned about the chronology applied in producing the SPD for SS5 now SS6 as it would appear that the SPD was cleared for consultation even before the adoption of the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear if the appropriate policies were applied to the SPD and if they were how Council could possibly be certain that they would stand.
Also have the concerns of Scrutiny Committee and decisions by 5th Sept Cabinet been applied to the SDP prior to consultation as identified in the Minutes of the latter.
If the answer is no and I have no knowledge of them then surely the consultation must be halted for consultees to be updated and then rescheduled.
Transport
I am also concerned about the whole approach to transport and movement within the New Town and between there and the village of Waterbeach. There appears to be a mismatch between the ambition of the SPD to prioritise pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic over that of the car. And the proposed Transport Plan in the document.
What the SPD actually delivers is the opposite, as cars are fast tracked to the centres and across the town with cycles sent to the perimeter.
In order to put people first and encourage people to change current habits pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic must always have right of way and the quickest route from a to b. Cars on the other hand should be given a circuitous route via an outer ring road. If we are brave enough to do this then we may truly change habits.
Schools, rail station shopping centre and Waterbeach Village must have restricted car access in favour of pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic. Cycle and mobility parking must be abundant and close to facilities. And must be provided early in the development process.
I would broadly support the views of the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign on the SPD and recommend a serious perusal of their document at:-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
I would go as far as to say that the early introduction of Intra and inter town cycle routes together with complimentary Bus and Train services is more important than upgrading the A10 and will deliver significant Modal Shift.
Number, Density and Height of Dwellings
I am particularly concerned about the number of dwellings the SPD seems to be supporting and that the numbers are developer led rather than portrayed as a district requirement supported by the SS5 policies.
For example, the Plan Policy says 8000 to 9000 dwellings, yet the SPD appears to be supporting the development for 11000 dwellings. This will only be achieved by building high and close, blighting the fen-scape and reducing the amount of green space within the town.
11000 dwellings will require a dwellings per hectare ratio of 51. When we consider that Bovis at Bannold drove went for 38 and how little green open space they provide what will be the effect of 51?
As with M People "the only way is up" and the SPD dutifully obliges. It says the final number will be design led but points us in an upward direction with the spatial map on page 69, Fig 3, prompting the developers up to 8 storeys high. The plan for Ely Station area in East Cambs is to max out at 4 storeys and is very similar landscape to Waterbeach.
Does Waterbeach and the Fen Edge need this?

It is not clear that this approach is supported by the Local Plan policies SS5 as it clearly states in SC-MM058 of Major Mods now SS6 that it will draw on the traditions of other Fen Edge Market Towns. Not aware that any of those have 8 story buildings.
We can deliver the target figure of 8000 to 9000 at 40 DPH and build a town that befits the Fen and complies with SS5 policy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
Relationship to existing village
The original concept of the Local Plan was for green space between the existing Village and the New Town. This was dropped when the Bannolds were built on. Why, because the SPD is developer led and not a District requirement and they value future customers over the needs of existing residents.
The Bannold inspector said in his judgment that the green space requirement could be accommodated beyond Capper Rd.
Protecting the identity and character of Waterbeach as a Village close to the New Town is included in 4 SS5 Major Modification Policies: MM058, MM065, MM075, MM076 which are absorbed into SS6 of the adopted Local plan it is also part of the SPD Vision. Close is defined as being a close distance away or apart. Cleary not applied in the SPD.
The only thing stopping these policies protecting the identity of Waterbeach Village is the lack of ambition and resolve of South Cambs District Council. This requirement should be absorbed by the SPD and the SPD should represent the aspirations South Cambs District and the people who live here.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns in particular your rationale should you continue to ignore the views of Waterbeach.

Response to SPD consultation
First of all I am concerned about the chronology applied in producing the SPD for SS5 now SS6 as it would appear that the SPD was cleared for consultation even before the adoption of the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear if the appropriate policies were applied to the SPD and if they were how Council could possibly be certain that they would stand.
Also have the concerns of Scrutiny Committee and decisions by 5th Sept Cabinet been applied to the SDP prior to consultation as identified in the Minutes of the latter.
If the answer is no and I have no knowledge of them then surely the consultation must be halted for consultees to be updated and then rescheduled.
Transport
I am also concerned about the whole approach to transport and movement within the New Town and between there and the village of Waterbeach. There appears to be a mismatch between the ambition of the SPD to prioritise pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic over that of the car. And the proposed Transport Plan in the document.
What the SPD actually delivers is the opposite, as cars are fast tracked to the centres and across the town with cycles sent to the perimeter.
In order to put people first and encourage people to change current habits pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic must always have right of way and the quickest route from a to b. Cars on the other hand should be given a circuitous route via an outer ring road. If we are brave enough to do this then we may truly change habits.
Schools, rail station shopping centre and Waterbeach Village must have restricted car access in favour of pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic. Cycle and mobility parking must be abundant and close to facilities. And must be provided early in the development process.
I would broadly support the views of the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign on the SPD and recommend a serious perusal of their document at:-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
I would go as far as to say that the early introduction of Intra and inter town cycle routes together with complimentary Bus and Train services is more important than upgrading the A10 and will deliver significant Modal Shift.
Number, Density and Height of Dwellings
I am particularly concerned about the number of dwellings the SPD seems to be supporting and that the numbers are developer led rather than portrayed as a district requirement supported by the SS5 policies.
For example, the Plan Policy says 8000 to 9000 dwellings, yet the SPD appears to be supporting the development for 11000 dwellings. This will only be achieved by building high and close, blighting the fen-scape and reducing the amount of green space within the town.
11000 dwellings will require a dwellings per hectare ratio of 51. When we consider that Bovis at Bannold drove went for 38 and how little green open space they provide what will be the effect of 51?
As with M People "the only way is up" and the SPD dutifully obliges. It says the final number will be design led but points us in an upward direction with the spatial map on page 69, Fig 3, prompting the developers up to 8 storeys high. The plan for Ely Station area in East Cambs is to max out at 4 storeys and is very similar landscape to Waterbeach.
Does Waterbeach and the Fen Edge need this?

It is not clear that this approach is supported by the Local Plan policies SS5 as it clearly states in SC-MM058 of Major Mods now SS6 that it will draw on the traditions of other Fen Edge Market Towns. Not aware that any of those have 8 story buildings.
We can deliver the target figure of 8000 to 9000 at 40 DPH and build a town that befits the Fen and complies with SS5 policy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
Relationship to existing village
The original concept of the Local Plan was for green space between the existing Village and the New Town. This was dropped when the Bannolds were built on. Why, because the SPD is developer led and not a District requirement and they value future customers over the needs of existing residents.
The Bannold inspector said in his judgment that the green space requirement could be accommodated beyond Capper Rd.
Protecting the identity and character of Waterbeach as a Village close to the New Town is included in 4 SS5 Major Modification Policies: MM058, MM065, MM075, MM076 which are absorbed into SS6 of the adopted Local plan it is also part of the SPD Vision. Close is defined as being a close distance away or apart. Cleary not applied in the SPD.
The only thing stopping these policies protecting the identity of Waterbeach Village is the lack of ambition and resolve of South Cambs District Council. This requirement should be absorbed by the SPD and the SPD should represent the aspirations South Cambs District and the people who live here.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns in particular your rationale should you continue to ignore the views of Waterbeach.

Response to SPD consultation
First of all I am concerned about the chronology applied in producing the SPD for SS5 now SS6 as it would appear that the SPD was cleared for consultation even before the adoption of the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear if the appropriate policies were applied to the SPD and if they were how Council could possibly be certain that they would stand.
Also have the concerns of Scrutiny Committee and decisions by 5th Sept Cabinet been applied to the SDP prior to consultation as identified in the Minutes of the latter.
If the answer is no and I have no knowledge of them then surely the consultation must be halted for consultees to be updated and then rescheduled.
Transport
I am also concerned about the whole approach to transport and movement within the New Town and between there and the village of Waterbeach. There appears to be a mismatch between the ambition of the SPD to prioritise pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic over that of the car. And the proposed Transport Plan in the document.
What the SPD actually delivers is the opposite, as cars are fast tracked to the centres and across the town with cycles sent to the perimeter.
In order to put people first and encourage people to change current habits pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic must always have right of way and the quickest route from a to b. Cars on the other hand should be given a circuitous route via an outer ring road. If we are brave enough to do this then we may truly change habits.
Schools, rail station shopping centre and Waterbeach Village must have restricted car access in favour of pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic. Cycle and mobility parking must be abundant and close to facilities. And must be provided early in the development process.
I would broadly support the views of the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign on the SPD and recommend a serious perusal of their document at:-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
I would go as far as to say that the early introduction of Intra and inter town cycle routes together with complimentary Bus and Train services is more important than upgrading the A10 and will deliver significant Modal Shift.
Number, Density and Height of Dwellings
I am particularly concerned about the number of dwellings the SPD seems to be supporting and that the numbers are developer led rather than portrayed as a district requirement supported by the SS5 policies.
For example, the Plan Policy says 8000 to 9000 dwellings, yet the SPD appears to be supporting the development for 11000 dwellings. This will only be achieved by building high and close, blighting the fen-scape and reducing the amount of green space within the town.
11000 dwellings will require a dwellings per hectare ratio of 51. When we consider that Bovis at Bannold drove went for 38 and how little green open space they provide what will be the effect of 51?
As with M People "the only way is up" and the SPD dutifully obliges. It says the final number will be design led but points us in an upward direction with the spatial map on page 69, Fig 3, prompting the developers up to 8 storeys high. The plan for Ely Station area in East Cambs is to max out at 4 storeys and is very similar landscape to Waterbeach.
Does Waterbeach and the Fen Edge need this?

It is not clear that this approach is supported by the Local Plan policies SS5 as it clearly states in SC-MM058 of Major Mods now SS6 that it will draw on the traditions of other Fen Edge Market Towns. Not aware that any of those have 8 story buildings.
We can deliver the target figure of 8000 to 9000 at 40 DPH and build a town that befits the Fen and complies with SS5 policy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
Relationship to existing village
The original concept of the Local Plan was for green space between the existing Village and the New Town. This was dropped when the Bannolds were built on. Why, because the SPD is developer led and not a District requirement and they value future customers over the needs of existing residents.
The Bannold inspector said in his judgment that the green space requirement could be accommodated beyond Capper Rd.
Protecting the identity and character of Waterbeach as a Village close to the New Town is included in 4 SS5 Major Modification Policies: MM058, MM065, MM075, MM076 which are absorbed into SS6 of the adopted Local plan it is also part of the SPD Vision. Close is defined as being a close distance away or apart. Cleary not applied in the SPD.
The only thing stopping these policies protecting the identity of Waterbeach Village is the lack of ambition and resolve of South Cambs District Council. This requirement should be absorbed by the SPD and the SPD should represent the aspirations South Cambs District and the people who live here.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns in particular your rationale should you continue to ignore the views of Waterbeach.

Response to SPD consultation
First of all I am concerned about the chronology applied in producing the SPD for SS5 now SS6 as it would appear that the SPD was cleared for consultation even before the adoption of the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear if the appropriate policies were applied to the SPD and if they were how Council could possibly be certain that they would stand.
Also have the concerns of Scrutiny Committee and decisions by 5th Sept Cabinet been applied to the SDP prior to consultation as identified in the Minutes of the latter.
If the answer is no and I have no knowledge of them then surely the consultation must be halted for consultees to be updated and then rescheduled.
Transport
I am also concerned about the whole approach to transport and movement within the New Town and between there and the village of Waterbeach. There appears to be a mismatch between the ambition of the SPD to prioritise pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic over that of the car. And the proposed Transport Plan in the document.
What the SPD actually delivers is the opposite, as cars are fast tracked to the centres and across the town with cycles sent to the perimeter.
In order to put people first and encourage people to change current habits pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic must always have right of way and the quickest route from a to b. Cars on the other hand should be given a circuitous route via an outer ring road. If we are brave enough to do this then we may truly change habits.
Schools, rail station shopping centre and Waterbeach Village must have restricted car access in favour of pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic. Cycle and mobility parking must be abundant and close to facilities. And must be provided early in the development process.
I would broadly support the views of the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign on the SPD and recommend a serious perusal of their document at:-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
I would go as far as to say that the early introduction of Intra and inter town cycle routes together with complimentary Bus and Train services is more important than upgrading the A10 and will deliver significant Modal Shift.
Number, Density and Height of Dwellings
I am particularly concerned about the number of dwellings the SPD seems to be supporting and that the numbers are developer led rather than portrayed as a district requirement supported by the SS5 policies.
For example, the Plan Policy says 8000 to 9000 dwellings, yet the SPD appears to be supporting the development for 11000 dwellings. This will only be achieved by building high and close, blighting the fen-scape and reducing the amount of green space within the town.
11000 dwellings will require a dwellings per hectare ratio of 51. When we consider that Bovis at Bannold drove went for 38 and how little green open space they provide what will be the effect of 51?
As with M People "the only way is up" and the SPD dutifully obliges. It says the final number will be design led but points us in an upward direction with the spatial map on page 69, Fig 3, prompting the developers up to 8 storeys high. The plan for Ely Station area in East Cambs is to max out at 4 storeys and is very similar landscape to Waterbeach.
Does Waterbeach and the Fen Edge need this?

It is not clear that this approach is supported by the Local Plan policies SS5 as it clearly states in SC-MM058 of Major Mods now SS6 that it will draw on the traditions of other Fen Edge Market Towns. Not aware that any of those have 8 story buildings.
We can deliver the target figure of 8000 to 9000 at 40 DPH and build a town that befits the Fen and complies with SS5 policy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
Relationship to existing village
The original concept of the Local Plan was for green space between the existing Village and the New Town. This was dropped when the Bannolds were built on. Why, because the SPD is developer led and not a District requirement and they value future customers over the needs of existing residents.
The Bannold inspector said in his judgment that the green space requirement could be accommodated beyond Capper Rd.
Protecting the identity and character of Waterbeach as a Village close to the New Town is included in 4 SS5 Major Modification Policies: MM058, MM065, MM075, MM076 which are absorbed into SS6 of the adopted Local plan it is also part of the SPD Vision. Close is defined as being a close distance away or apart. Cleary not applied in the SPD.
The only thing stopping these policies protecting the identity of Waterbeach Village is the lack of ambition and resolve of South Cambs District Council. This requirement should be absorbed by the SPD and the SPD should represent the aspirations South Cambs District and the people who live here.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns in particular your rationale should you continue to ignore the views of Waterbeach.

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.

The SPD does not provide sufficient guidance to encourage non motor vehicle transport use. The Waterbeach Cycling Campaign has proposed an alternative plan for a ring road and prioritised cross site routes for cyclists and pedestrians. I support this alternative plan. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-J6qULLZyibevSF5mB6ISzfybDUDsq8I/view

Roads within the new town should be clearly programmed to ensure construction traffic and users traffic for the new station do not access the station through the existing village.

More green space should be provided at the southern end of the new town to ensure the existing village continues to benefit from a fen edge landscape.

The SPD does not provide sufficient guidance to encourage non motor vehicle transport use. The Waterbeach Cycling Campaign has proposed an alternative plan for a ring road and prioritised cross site routes for cyclists and pedestrians. I support this alternative plan. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-J6qULLZyibevSF5mB6ISzfybDUDsq8I/view

Roads within the new town should be clearly programmed to ensure construction traffic and users traffic for the new station do not access the station through the existing village.

More green space should be provided at the southern end of the new town to ensure the existing village continues to benefit from a fen edge landscape.