Waterbeach New Town SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 167454

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Bryan

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
A10:
Clearer plans are needed. More joined up approach between county transport development and district housing development vital for both short and long term success. It feels like housing developments are being planned before knowing that there is a commitment to improving major highways.

Comment

Representation ID: 167455

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Bryan

5.4 HEALTH
Social responsibility for an ageing population:
Very little mention and nothing stipulated. What thought has been given to enabling this?
Local shops:
How do you ensure a good range of facilities? Are shop units built and let to anyone or do you invite expressions of interest from, for example, a bakery, a newsagents, a convenience store, a café etc....

Comment

Representation ID: 167456

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Bryan

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
Social Infrastructure - Emergency Services:
I can find no provision for these in the plan. If the new town is considered to be self-sustaining and the major settlement in the area would it not make more sense for the new town to host the emergency and civic services?

Comment

Representation ID: 167457

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Bryan

APPENDIX 1: LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT
Development to meet local need:
How do we ensure this development is used to meet local housing needs and not promoted to Londoners as a commuter town?

Object

Representation ID: 167458

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Ryan Bridger

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167459

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Dr Chris Lindley

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

As a Horningsea Resident anything that reduces car traffic will benefit our village. Horningsea appears to have been omitted form consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 167460

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Thomas Stroud

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167461

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Christina Youell

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

1) A recent report from UNICEF stating that 1 in 3 children are growing up in parts of the UK with hazardous levels of toxic air - and note that the proposed primary schools are located on main roads.

2) I note that a national government committee has recommended bringing forward by 8 years a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars.

Object

Representation ID: 167462

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Richard Youell

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

1) A recent report from UNICEF stating that 1 in 3 children are growing up in parts of the UK with hazardous levels of toxic air - and note that the proposed primary schools are located on main roads.

2) I note that a national government committee has recommended bringing forward by 8 years a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars.

Object

Representation ID: 167463

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Little

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Comment

Representation ID: 167464

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: mr gideon pain

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Comment about the lack of provision for arts and culture

I would like to comment about the limited mention of arts and cultural facilities within the Waterbeach SPD. There are slight references in passing on pages 39-40 but these go nowhere near to exploring the possibilities and opportunities a detailed arts policy can offer, both within the establishment of new communities and also in enriching the quality of life there-after. Waterbeach already has a diverse artistic community who through organising concerts, exhibition, film screenings and talks , [often with assistance from Urban and Civic,] have realised a local demand that can only grow once the village starts increasing in size and population.

Comment

Representation ID: 167465

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: mr gideon pain

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Comment that the new town should follow Waterbeach Cycle Campaign's 'People First' proposal.

My second comment is that the new town should follow the 'People Frist' proposal by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign, and establish pedestrian priority over vehicle access in the design of the new street layout.

Comment

Representation ID: 167466

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: Horningsea Parish Council

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Comments on the transport include
* Public transport - needs to be more prescriptive, that provision is needed from the start, with better quality and frequency than currently and trigger points.
* Cycling - unreasonable to expect all residents to cycle to Cambridge. More capacity on dedicated routes needed. Greenways route unclear.
* Cars - even with modal shift there will be an increase in traffic in A10 corridor, causing significant delays and increased traffic on B1047. Detrimental effect on the conservation area and listed buildings of Horningsea and cause safety issues.

Transport

The SPD states that public transport, including mass transit and rail, will be the preferred mode for longer distance trips giving less priority to car use. This relies on the provision of bus travel right from the start, with much better quality and frequency than currently exists. We suggest that the SDP should be more prescriptive in its requirements for 'bus provision including routes, frequency and timelines, i.e. how many dwellings will trigger an increase in frequency and more routes.

Although the SPD suggests improved cycleways between the new town and Cambridge it is not reasonable to expect all residents to use this mode for journeys to the major areas of employment to the east and north of the city, e.g. ARM and the Biomedical Centre. Current bus provision does not adequately serve these areas. An increase in car journeys on all nearby routes is to be expected. The Mott MacDonald Ely to Cambridge Transport Study forecasts all-mode trip generation to and from the new town during the period 07:00 to 19:00 at 18,541, of which 2,871 will be by car.

This is in addition to 5,680 cars from Ely in the same period. It also predicts that the development will generate a total of 2,500 car trips in the AM peak hour and 3,250 in the PM peak hour, with all trips using the A10 at some point in order to access or leave the development. It also states that Clayhithe Road provides a secondary access route to Cambridge and to the A14. There are currently about 4,200 residents in Waterbeach. Even given a modal shift, an increase of between 18,000 and 25,000 residents would cause significant delays on all routes and a significant increase in traffic on the B1047. Highways England is considering applying to reclassify the new A14 between Girton and Ellington as motorway. This section is due to be opened in 2020 and is likely to encourage increased traffic on the A10. The SPD is not clear on the timings of provisions such as a new segregated busway between Waterbeach New Town and Cambridge. Currently congestion on the A10 and at the Milton A10/A14 interchange causes drivers to divert at Car Dyke Road onto Station Road and the B1057 with resultant queuing through Horningsea and Fen Ditton onto Newmarket Road. Any increase in traffic will have a detrimental effect on the conservation area and listed buildings of Horningsea and cause safety issues. The SPD needs to dictate timelines that will ensure public transport and segregated busway is in place before
dwellings are completed.

Details of new cycle routes are needed. An estimated 1.3% to 4.8% of commuters in South Cambridgeshire use cycling as their preferred method of transport3. This would result in at least 250 cyclists using commuter routes at peak times. If, as is predicted, more commuters used cycling rather than vehicular transport, this would rise to nearly 1,000 requiring more dedicated cycling routes than described. An increase in vehicular and cycle traffic on Clayhithe Bridge and the B1047 would be dangerous without a dedicated cycle lane. The Greenways project has not indicated a clear cycling and pedestrian link from Waterbeach to Horningsea and Cambridge East and South.

Horningsea PC suggests that Clayhithe Bridge should be made into a traffic light controlled alternating one-way system to allow room for a segregated cycle and pedestian path. The bridge will need upgrading to accommodate any increase in vehicuar traffic. While the hallingway on the west side of the River Cam currently provides a cycle route into Cambridge, the crossing at Baits Bite Lock is inadequate and its use by increased cycling population is not feasible. The SPD needs to give more detail of the improvement of the hallingway, the river crossing and plans for its future maintenance.

Public transport provision and improved transport routes

We agree with the public transport provisions outlined; these need to be available early in the development. This includes the outcomes of Strand Two of the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study 4. Without this essential public transport improvement and improved routes, residents will use cars with resultant effect on road congestion and quality of life for residents of Waterbeach village, Milton, Horningsea and Fen Ditton. Ownership and use of cars is much more complex than simple logistics of travel. The aspiration by young people to own a car reflects that cars are seen as integral to adulthood and independence, irrespective of location, parental influence and logical alternatives.

While residents may use public transport and alternative methods, such as cycling,
most will still own and use a car. Due to the retail, leisure and community facilities and the provision of new secondary and sixth form colleges in the new town, traffic movement will include journeys into it from Horningsea and Fen Ditton and the SPD needs to reflect this and the fact that these villages have a predominantly older population, dependent on cars unless public transport is provided between the villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 167467

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: Horningsea Parish Council

3. VISION
Support objective for an integrated, cohesive development. Easy access routes to retail, schools, community facilities needed from outset.

Housing, building density and population

We welcome the SPD's objective of integrating the two developments and making it a cohesive town. Easy access routes to retail, school and community facilities from both developments are needed from the outset.

Comment

Representation ID: 167468

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: Horningsea Parish Council

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT, DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
* Difference between planning applications (11,000 dwellings / 30,800 residents) and Policy SS/6 (8-9,000 dwellings / 25,200 population) - SPD needs to specify numbers, density and ensure infrastructure provision reflects actual numbers permitted and includes triggers for delivery.
* Building heights of 6 / 8 storeys are inappropriate for Fenland setting.
* More detail needed on location of emergency services.
* Welcome 40 affordable housing - should be delivered early.
* Ensure sufficient community space, not reliant on schools.
* Triggers for schools need to bear in mind existing schools are over subscribed.

Housing, building density and population

Urban & Civic's application is for up to 6,500 dwellings; RLW application is for 4,500 making a total of 11,000, an estimated population of 30,800 residents6. However, the Local Plan Policy SS/6 Development Strategy to 2031 specifies the total number of houses as 8,000 to 9,000, an estimated residential population of 25,200. This SPD also specifies 8,000 to 9,000 dwellings. The infrastructure, number of schools and employment opportunities, as well as s106 contributions, will be significantly different for this lower number. The difference in blanket residential density, 51 for 11,000 dwellings and 40 for 9,000 dwellings, is also significant. The SPD therefore needs to specify now the total number of dwellings planned, the commensurate density and associated infrastructure. While the SPD acknowledges that the planning applications provide in the order of 11,000 dwellings, it states that it makes no comment on the suitability of this overall level of development and explores land use requirements by housing type and density for different total numbers7. We do not accept that this can be left until tested at the specific proposals. The provision of spatial framework, leisure facilities, transport corridors, access, retail, water and waste management, health and parking depends on eventual totals. The triggers for secondary school provision, traffic mitigation and public transport should be set by staged completion of the eventual total number of dwellings.

Building heights of six storey, with two possible locations of eight storey, are inappropriate in a fenland setting. An eight storey, high density block at the eastern boundary and close to the station could lead to lack of contact with central town facilities and social isolation.

More detail is needed on the location of emergency services to give easy access to residents in all areas of the town.

We welcome the objective of 40% affordable housing. We recognise that market value houses will be built first but request that the SPD sets an early timeline for the provision of affordable housing, including social housing, for key workers.

Schools and Community Facilities

While the provision of community spaces and facilities appears reasonable it includes a reliance on the use of school facilities for some community use. Headteachers are autonomous and cannot be forced to make their facilities available for community use such as meeting spaces. The SPD must not cut down on providing community spaces by relying on schools.

Four form entry for secondary school will be triggered by 2,400 to 3,300 homes. Secondary school children may arrive before that trigger; as many as 1000 secondary school children may require places within the first 500 homes which, spread over age groups could require at least two-form entry. Bottisham and Cottenham Village Colleges are already oversubscribed. We suggest that the trigger for secondary school provision should be at 500 two- and three-bedroomed dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 167469

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Ms Catherine Wisbeach

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167470

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Dr Ailsa Stroud

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

In addition, I object to the roadcentric measures that will increase traffic down the A10 such as encouraging people to drive to work rather than use the proposed new greenway or rail routes, especially so close to an AQMA at Milton (on the A14) which has a legal reuqirement to refuse development that will detrementally affect it. I also object to the schools prioritising road access. Schools should be cited away from main roads for safety, air quality and active transport reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 167471

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Alisdair Little

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167472

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Angela Brown

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Object to access to the railway station being via Cody Road and SPD needs to address traffic, parking and rat-running impacts on Waterbeach.

Waterbeach railways station needs to be moved immediately but with preferential access and parking for local residents who majorly contribute to local and national economies. The Cody Road 'solution' however is unrealistic. A reliable zipper-bus or RT system is needed from outset. Not everyone is able to walk and cycle the new distances for H&S, age and disability reasons.

Traffic, parking and rat-running issues need to be tightly managed and coordinated with A10 development.

Residents of Waterbeach deserve clear, vehicular access to the new station. Station needs to be moved first and fast, and with a ban on construction traffic through Waterbeach.

The upgrade of the A10 is of less importance.

Object

Representation ID: 167473

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Angela Brown

1.3 KEY ISSUES
Comment that drainage and sustainable waste policies need to remain high priorities and realistic support for community development needs to be itemised

Drainage and sustainable waste policies need to remain high priorities.

Summary consultation leaflet Item 1A - Community Development - where is the funding coming from for this? What will managements and appointments structure be?

S106 Waterbeach Parish Council must be involved throughout.

The Parish Council's views are integral and must be sought and respected.

Object

Representation ID: 167474

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

1. INTRODUCTION
The SPD has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out which mean that we recommend non-adoption of it as submitted.

We are gravely concerned that the SPD has been drafted and determined before the Local
plan was adopted. This makes it impossible for the local plan Inspector's recommendations and modifications to be adopted in the SPD. We have read the inspectors report on Policy SS/5 Waterbeach New Town in the Local Plan and have found many omissions of comments within the SPD.
Concerning to read the comments and issues raised by committee regarding the content of the SPD and lack of time for councillors ( 5 days before the meeting) to be able to make informed judgement.

Letters from the EA, Heritage England and Natural England. Although the council believe that their concerns have been dealt with through the local plan process the EA, Heritage England and Natural England clearly state that additional information has since come to light.

The lack of fair and proper consultation. No direct notification of residents. Bearing in mind all of the above we urge SCDC to consider recalling the current public consultation until it can be proven that the public have all the facts.

Object

Representation ID: 167475

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

2.4 Landscape, Ecology & Water
Policy SS/5 states that the proposed new settlement should reflect surrounding fenland towns in design. The concept of the new design could be warranted in a different (e.g. city/urban) landscape but it is not acceptable on the Fen edge and Fen edge villages of Waterbeach and Chittering which will be dwarfed by the proposed new town. Absolutely no creative thought has been provided. Does not reflect the architecture of the existing village or surrounding fen edge villages.

Object

Representation ID: 167476

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
Heights of up to thirty-metre-high blocks) (being proposed by both developers) cannot be mitigated in the low-lying fens to the North, East and South of the site.. The sightlines chosen by SCDC do not reflect the topography of the land to the East and North and South of the site and should be revised. 3D impressions are also much needed please for general public to understand the density of built form: it is very hard to comprehend this with simple wire lines and illustrations.

Both the urban design and building heights will permanently change and interrupt the characteristic long views, big skies and tranquillity of the fens. The SPD must contain height restrictions that reflect surrounding existing architecture and protect the views from and to Denny Abbey. Without this the SPD is not fit for purpose in directing any development that happens north of Waterbeach.

Object

Representation ID: 167477

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Although two access points onto the A10 are described, the southern point is not known. More detail is needed to assess the effect of increased vehicular use of the A10, the A14 interchange at Milton and access to Cambridge or the likelihood of traffic diverting through secondary roads such as the B1047 to reach east Cambridge and the ring road, Landbeach Road and Ely Road, Milton and knock on effects at Horningsea too. Entry and exit to private vehicles should only be from DUALLED A10. Currently there is a risk of making rat-runs.

Additional physical measures are required: Clayhithe and Horningsea to prevent drivers turning off the A10 at Car Dyke Road to use the B1047 to travel south and east; within Waterbeach to prevent access onto the B1047

Public transport route not described and funding not guaranteed.

Object

Representation ID: 167478

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

5.7 PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE & PLANTING
We have been promised many times over by developers and SCDC that there would be a
designated space between the village and the proposed development. The unique Fenland is worth preserving.

Object

Representation ID: 167479

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This development and the combined developments of Urban and Civic and RLWE will
produce enormous amounts of household, commercial and building and demolition waste.
The SPD must contain restrictions on the building of anything except the EU's top 3 energy from waste solutions.

We note also that there is no provision for an area air quality management plan. The SPD must include the need NOW for an AQMA and management plan. The SPD as it currently stands, underestimates (totally ignores in fact) the impact on air quality from the numerous sources that will contribute during the build and long term.

The SPD fails to mention how the planned new town will help achieve the new City and County Air Quality Action Plans or the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy or support the Milton AQMAP

Object

Representation ID: 167480

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
GREENWAYS AND CORRIDORS
The SPD is premature in the absence of a coordinated approach for the whole development site across both land ownerships. The SPD must agree first:
-Retention of woodland west of the lake
-Safeguarding of land for special school
-Revision of primary school and special school locations away from the A10 and areas of high air pollution
-Impacts to Wicken Fen
-Ecological assessments (bat, hedgehog, birds and hedgerows)
-Revised flood and drainage risk assessments
-Update of green infrastructure- there is now much need for biodiversity given the hundreds of houses that have been built in the last few years in Waterbeach on greenfield.

Collaborative work with wildlife organisations and the national trust to ensure biodiversity is
maximised within the SPD blue print:

Object

Representation ID: 167481

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
SPD is also non-specific enough about the limits of housing numbers Housing available on the Waterbeach development would be attractive to new employees at the distant employment sites resulting in increased travel.

A large amount of high-rise buildings will be necessary to facilitate the delivery of 6500 homes. This would be unacceptable as it is out of character for the area totally at odds with nearby settlements.

The height of the lakeside buildings (up to six storeys with some up to eight/ 30m) is not in
keeping with the surrounding area, the conservation area and vernacular of Waterbeach village, the listed buildings of Landbeach or the historic buildings of Denny Abbey.

Object

Representation ID: 167482

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Public Transport
Until the outcome of the A10 Corridor study is known, the viability of proposed transport mitigation cannot be assessed. If mitigation is delayed until 1400 dwellings have been occupied any construction traffic needed to change the A10 will add to the congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 167483

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Non-vehicular access route provision
We object to the proposal to use the existing Bannolds Road Byway as 'an important route' whilst all the proposals for improved access / connectivity are for cyclists and pedestrians.

Absolutely no reference or consideration is given to horse riders. No plans have been put in place to provide alternative access and equally commodious facilities for horse riders. This is unacceptable. A list of references in the SPD are provided where equestrian needs have not been addressed.