5. Creating the Place - Section 1: A Well Connected Place

I wanted to say how important the plans to include Equestrians are, and as riders how much we appreciate our inclusion.

There are a lot of horse riders in the area, so creating the proposed bridleways will link up adjacent villages and create a much wider network of off road riding for us, which allows for much safer hacking.

As mentioned in the plans, the provision of soft surfaces to ride on, along with places to mount will be hugely beneficial and valued additions to the access itself.

We look forward to hopefully riding these tracks one day!!!!

The plans include moving the bus stop serving Highfields towards Cambourne. This is unacceptable and a blatant disregard of existing village requirements! The site is not directly connected to the A428 and the proposed access routes are woefully inadequate to serve a development of this size.
Traffic entering and leaving the site will use Highfields and Hardwick as rat runs should there be any issue with between the Childerley roundabout and the A428 and this simple fact appears to have been brushed aside!

Document in general, and in particular Fix B, needs to clarify relationship with Caldecote Village SPD, and how any differences get resolved. Ideally they should be made consistent. E.g. current draft of Caldecote Village SPD proposes slightly different placement of strategic pedestrian routes vs. Fig 22 and Fig 28.

Fix C - It is unclear whether it is envisaged that the easterly bus stop location will be in addition to the existing 'Caldecote turn' bus stop or whether it is to replace it.

-- If the former then it needs to be sited far enough away so that the existing stop remains viable (e.g. allow 55mph travel between the stops).

-- If the latter, then the bus stop and connecting pathways must be positioned so that the walking distance for Highfields Caldecote residents is not increased. (It should be noted that for many Caldecote residents, the existing bus stop location already exceeds the 800m target from this SPD. Whilst it may be impractical for Bourn Airfield to improve this, it must not make this situation any worse.)

The presentation correctly say "good transport connections will be important in making the new village successful". I agree. Why then is the village not connected directly to the A428. Why will you be making residents travel through lower capacity roads to get out of the village. I object for these reasons. The current road layout will inevitably lead to more traffic on minor roads including those through the local villages rather than getting the best use out of the adjacent major road the A428.
This need changing now before the layout is set in stone.

Although Fix A attempts to cover SS/7 policy 8.c.ii and iii, it does nothing to address SS/7 8.c.i ("Include measures to mitigate the traffic impact of the new village on surrounding villages and roads").

The SPD particularly needs to outline the measures to be taken to mitigate the impact from traffic heading south (e.g. to Royston and beyond), which is poorly served by public transport today (and no improvements are proposed). The natural route for such traffic is along the Main Street through Caldecote to Longstowe - this is very narrow in places and cannot safely accommodate an increase in traffic. It is unclear that additional traffic calming measures in Caldecote (e.g. speed humps) would encourage vehicles to use longer alternative routes.

The schools should be located in car-free zones, so as to encourage walking, cycling and "park and stride".

After visiting the planning consultation meeting in Bourn earlier in the month I would like to object to the specific failings of the proposed new town of 3500 houses on the Bourn airfield.

Despite huge opposition from all local communities and their parish councils the development seems to be going ahead which really begs the question are our comments ,concerns and objections ever taken in to account? What is the point of these paper exercises if the council then ploughs on disregarding our objections and the comments of the Inspector?
He wrote in his report para 87:

'We are mindful of the significant levels of opposition to the Bourn Airfield proposal expressed by the local community and others, including fears of coalescence and traffic implications, including local traffic management issues relating to the Broadway. There is a degree of SCEPTICISM from the local community about whether their concerns can be adequately addressed. But there is nothing to indicate that these concerns cannot be satisfactorily addressed through the development management process and further guidance provided by SPD'

I feel getting traffic to and away from the new development is not being considered thoroughly enough. In the light that current thinking will mean a huge load weighted on The Broadway this will make Bourn and surrounding villages the obvious rat runs that Knapwell and Dry Drayton have become. Use common sense and have the exits ONLY leading on to the A428. Do not use excuses like cost and too many junctions on to the A428 these are not sound. The lives, environment , and safety of the existing villagers are more important than that.

Well Connected Places
"A fundamental principle of the new village will be to provide excellent connectivity and access for residents and visitors, by a range of modes, with an emphasis on sustainable, low‐carbon / low emission and active modes of travel ‐ walking, cycling and public transport (Policy TI/2 and SS/7)"

1A A street network that integrates movement and place
* "A defined network of on and off-street walking and cycling routes and bridleways which provide connections with the surrounding area, providing access to existing facilities and allowing residents of nearby settlements to easily access the new facilities on the site"

It appears from these statements that the aim is to use the bridleway network simply to enhance a shared pedestrian and cycle network from which equestrians will be excluded. This is unacceptable.

Horse riding should be included in the first paragraph and equestrians should not be
excluded from the new networks.

1B An environment that promotes walking and cycling
"* Contributions to the enhancement of the surrounding cycle network, including potential new routes that link eastward to Cambridge along the A428 corridor"

These should be NMU routes.

4B Access to natural environments
We support the references to bridleway creation in woodland settings set out in this
section although it appears to conflict with comments referred to in other sections.

Fix G Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding routes
We appreciate the creation and inclusion of equestrian routes in this section but do no understand the need for separate walking and cycling routes where there is a bridleway which is available to all users?

Fig. 47 | Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding
We support this proposed scheme although as previously stated, we would like to see the inclusion of a circular Restrict Byway open to carriage drivers. Whilst we appreciate that this might be of concern, it would be a bold and progressive step in much the same way that the hugely popular Cambourne peripheral bridleway was when it was first constructed.

6 Cohesive, well‐planned and well‐governed
Somewhere in the SPD there should be defined the responsibility and accountability for the maintenance of PROW's and a requirement for them to be maintained to be accessible all
year around.

5. Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Non Motorised User Infrastructure Fig 55
1 Improved walking and cycling network
Refers to riding in the text so horse riding should be included in the first column.
2 Cycleway Improvement
What provision is being made for equestrians on this route?
3 Rights of Way Network
Does not include access for carriage drivers.

6.5 DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY
No reference to the delivery of rights of way network other than cycle and pedestrian routes.

APPENDIX 1: BOURN AIRFIELD LOCAL PLAN POLICY 94 BOURN AIRFIELD NEW VILLAGE | A SPATIAL
FRAMEWORK & INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN | CONSULTATION DRAFT
Policy SS/7: New Village at Bourn Airfield
No reference to the Rights of Way network.

I would like to object to the proposal of the draft SPD Bourn airfield development as a resident of Knapwell.

We already have a huge number of cars using the little village as a rat run. There has already been a serious road traffic accident, with life threatening injuries.

There have been reported thefts from along the road side. Some of the older buildings are already experiencing cracks due to the thundering of lorries and HGV's who are using the village as a rat run. The council is not supporting the local population in this plan.

The development needs direct access to the A428. The current access plans will result in a significant increase in traffic on St Neots road and rat-running through the villages of Hardwick, Caldecote and Comberton. It will also mean that residents in Bourn airfield will have difficulties accessing the development.
I object to the SPD on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient ingress/ egress for residents and does not sufficiently mitigate the impact on St Neots road and surrounding villages. Direct access to A428 is needed

The development must have direct access to the A428 and it's own healthcare facilities.
Without these, the development will have unacceptable negative impact on the surrounding villages and its future residents.

1. There should be direct access onto the A428. If the traffic comes directly onto the Childerley roundabout it will cause congestion both on the St Neots Road and HIghfields Road and through the village of Caldecote.


2. The HQPT system must be kept completely separate from the Childerley roundabout and the St Neots Road. No traffic lights, no possibility of cars entering by mistake.

The SPD claims "A fundamental principle of the new village will be to provide excellent connectivity and access for residents and visitors, by a range of modes, with an emphasis on sustainable, low-carbon / low-emission and active modes
of travel - walking, cycling and public transport". This is a great objective but the design suggests that the emphasis is on facilitating private car journeys, whilst making it possible for those who really want to use the bus or cycle to do so if they are committed enough to travel further than they would if they drove. If you are really serious about walking, cycling and public transport, make these things the easiest and most accessible - ie put the busway and cycle way through the middle of the village (currently the route of the "primary street") and move the "village centre" and the community building to the middle of the village rather than the northeastern corner.

I recognise there is a need for new housing. I would like the new development to be as good as possible for those who come to live there, and for those who already live in surrounding villages. The potential car journeys generated by this development that are forced onto local roads because there is no direct access to the A428 is a major concern. You're expecting traffic queues out of the village (see section on busway needing dedicated lane at roundabout). Please re-visit this major omission for all our sakes.

I wish to comment on the draft Bourn Airfield New Village Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Overall planning for this area north of London is continuing piecemeal. Different planning bodies within transport, housing and employment from the Government down, have their own agendas. These include the Oxford to Cambridge Arc (a glint in the planner's eye as an outer ring road to London, parallel to the M25?); the Oxford to Cambridge Railway, the Cambridge Metro and the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway together with all the associated housing developments and employment plans for this vast corridor. It is uncoordinated, eventually leading to chaos.

I live in Hardwick and my doctor and dentist are a ten minute drive away in Comberton village. If I go by bus it takes at least an hour by Citi4 and then bus number 18. Nothing will persuade me to travel by bus and leave the car at home as long as I can drive. It is wishful thinking to expect many new residents to use the bus, however swift, when they will need to connect with a second bus to reach their destination. They need to go beyond the end of the bus route in the centre of Cambridge. Like me, the residents of Bourn Airfield will have a multiplicity of destinations inevitably involving an impractical journey using at least two buses.

There will be at least five or six thousand cars based in the new development. No connection is planned between the A428 and the M11 at Girton. No direct connection to the A428 is planned from Bourn Airfield. The folly of this will become more apparent as building proceeds.

You have set six planning objectives yet you fail miserably on the very first aim:- that the development should be "A well-connected place".

That means that the traffic it generates should be able to connect with the national road network at the earliest opportunity. Instead no direct connection is planned to the A428. The result will be thousands of cars trying to get onto a faster road, meandering about on the local minor roads seeking to avoid the congestion. Already the adjacent villages have problems making the right turn eastwards, across the traffic, to leave for Cambridge. This causes traffic to pile up at the village exit.

The absence of a direct connection to the A428 is an example of disastrous piecemeal planning and of penny-pinching at its worst. In five or ten years' time the connection will become a costly, desperate last resort to try to solve the gridlock; and at whose expense?

The Highways Agency itself has its doubts about the transport plans for the Bourn Airfield development. This connection to the A428 should be built now together with the A428 connection to Girton Interchange.

This will cause a huge increase in traffic down St Neots rd Hardwick, which is already a busy road.
Its already busy at rush times getting in and out of our properties and this increase will make it a nightmare for residents here.
Not to mention the increased in noise and air pollution coming straight past our doors. No chance of leaving windows open either.
This will affect our health and ruin our environment

This plan will necessitate increased traffic and a possible additional busway down St Neots rd. If so, the line of mature trees (over 60 years old) will be chopped down.
How can you justify that now, when we know how trees affect our health and environment?
These trees have been there absorbing noise and pollution for decades. Any plan that involves adding MORE traffic, but removing mature trees is entirely irresponsible. Fences are no substitute at all, as you well know

It's hard to be vibrant when you've been awake all night listening to traffic and wheezing

Green areas are being planned between houses and the A428 to combat noise and encourage wildlife at Bourn. At Hardwick this barrier and wildlife area will be removed unless traffic uses the A428. It is essential that an exit from Bourn directly on to the A428 is built otherwise the noise and pollution from traffic along St.Neots will be disastrous.

The following comments are in regard to Principle 1A.

We support the following statement: 'Site access points from the surrounding road network which are safe and convenient for pedestrians and cyclists'.

We oppose the following statement: 'A Primary Street which forms the spine of the site for all users...serves the village centre'. This is because a primary road running through the middle of the site will expose more people to air pollution and road danger. Instead, the primary road should run along the northern fringe of the site, in order to protect people from pollution and road danger caused by excessive motor traffic.

We oppose the following statement: 'Secondary streets which provide direct access to other areas of the site and are designed to accommodate potential bus routes'. This is because streets designed as bus routes tend to encourage higher speeds and more dangerous manoeuvres by car drivers. Therefore, (a) the dedicated 'high-quality' public transport route should run more centrally through the site, (b) the secondary streets that may host bus routes should be carefully selected in advance, and (c) bus gates should be used wherever needed to prevent rat-running by car drivers.

We add the following statement to Principle 1A: walking and cycling routes, whether they be on-street or off-street, should be the locus of social activity around buildings, therefore building frontages should always face and open up towards any adjacent walking or cycle route.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1B.

We add the following statement to Principle 1B: the cycle parking in new buildings must follow the design specifications laid out in policy TI/3 and either a cycle parking guide SPD when it is published by South Cambridgeshire District Council, or until such time, the guide (and its successors) currently published by Cambridge City Council.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1C.

We oppose the following statement: 'small-scale passenger parking facilities could also be provided on the site adjacent to the HQPT stops'. Even small-scale parking harms the surrounding walking and shopping environment. Only blue badge parking and cycle parking would be acceptable here. For all others, the Park and Ride service is available off-site.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1D.

We oppose the following statement: 'Parking should be designed in accordance with the guidelines set out in Policy TI/3 and the associated table at Fig 11: Parking Provision, with an aspiration for low car ownership.' The South Cambridgeshire car parking provision laid out in TI/3 encourages high car ownership rates and is in direct conflict with the aspiration for low car ownership. Therefore, the principle should be rewritten to allow for lower levels of car parking provision than specified by TI/3 and figure 11 of the Local Plan.

The statement 'Limiting the number of through-routes' is not strong enough, it should be written as 'There will be no through-routes for vehicles through residential areas' to prevent rat-running.

The suggestion of 'informal pedestrian crossings' does not give priority to pedestrians. Therefore, in order to give priority there must be more formal, Zebra pedestrian crossings.

We add the following statement: 'Streets should incorporate planted verges adjacent to the carriageway, especially streets with driveways, in order to allow room for dropped kerbs and street furniture while ensuring that footways and/or cycleways can be built unobstructed and without adverse camber.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix A.

We add the following statement: 'All the new or reconfigured junctions must be designed with safe and convenient walking and cycling routes.'

We oppose the following statement: 'The development will create a primary street linking the main access points, which must...serve the village centre'. It is a terrible mistake to put the primary street through the village centre, it will create a car-dominated environment and discourage people from walking to and around the shops. Instead, the village centre should be accessed by car through secondary streets and it should never be possible to use the village centre as a driving through-route.

We add the following statement: 'The primary street should be routed as far to the north and distant from houses as possible, keeping it close to the existing road infrastructure and keeping pollution, noise and road danger away from residents.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix B.

There is a contradiction here between 'A shared pedestrian and cycle route' and 'Segregated pedestrian and cycle routes'. It is unclear which is meant where. We would delete the word 'shared' and instead replace it with 'segregated'.

We add the following statement: 'Cycle routes along urban streets must be adjacent to a separate, dedicated footway. Away from streets, cycle routes should be built with a separate, dedicated footway unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that pedestrian usage will be sufficiently low to allow sharing. For design and construction, use standards found in manuals such as Designing for Cycle Traffic by John Parkin.'

We add the following statement: 'Strategic walking and cycling routes must have continuity and priority over motor traffic at side-road crossings and driveways.'

We add the following statement: 'Routes must be fully accessible to people with disabilities who are using mobility aids such as mobility scooters, adapted cycles and wheelchairs.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix C.

We oppose the following statement: 'combined walking and cycling path with a minimum 3m width'. A segregated combined walking and cycling path must be at least 4.5m wide. The proposed minimum path width of 3m is much too narrow for segregation, because it would allow only 1.5m for the footway and 1.5m for a single direction cycleway, without enough space for a bi-directional cycleway.

We add the following statements: 'There must be a safe buffer between the busway and the cycleway of at least 2m grass verge.'

'There must be safe and convenient crossing points designed with cycling-friendly curvature such that people walking and cycling approach the crossing in a direction perpendicular to the movement of buses, with clear and very long visibility splays in both directions, and ideally with a 3m-deep refuge island between the bus lanes.'

'No chicanes or guardrails are to be used, because these block visibility, exclude some people with disabilities from using the path, pose an obstacle that will cause injuries, create a dangerous distraction from moving buses, and cause conflict between users of the path.'

There is no direct access to the A428. This is essential as: (a) not everyone will be working in central Cambridge. It would be necessary for a proportion residents to take more than one bus to get to their workplace. This will be too time-consuming and they will travel by car for convenience. (B) not everybody' s workplace will be within the city of Cambridge. It will be necessary for residents to travel both within South Cambridgeshire and beyond and they will need easy of access to the A428. If this is not available they will use the surrounding villages of Cambourne, Toft, Hardwick, Comberton and Barton to access major roads. These villages are already heavily used from 07:00-10:00 and 15:00-19:00 and if there is any major issue on the major roads there is a constant stream of traffic. If these issues are not properly addressed at this stage, life will become unbearable for the residents of these villages. Highways England have drastically underestimated the amount of traffic usage on these smaller roads as well as the amount of traffic which will emerge from the development. The solution to this is for the developers to finance the resolution of these very significant traffic issues.

Residents of the development will not just work in central Cambridge as the proposal suggests. The proposed provision of a single access point to the A428 via the St Neots road is totally inadequate for a community of this size. It needs a direct link to the A428 dual carriageway. The Bus proposal will serve a single point in the City requiring further bus rides to get to and from where people actually work. These issues will lead to rat-running through Bourn Valley villages and traffic calming the entire local road network to address this is too ridiculous for words.

The attached note sets out the County Council officer comments on the Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document in response to a consultation by South Cambridgeshire District Council. Whilst local County Members have been made aware of the consultation, this response does not include their comments or considerations or those of the Economy and Environment Committee which will endorse this response at its meeting on 19th September.

This response includes the comments of the following Council services and functions:
- Transport Assessment
- Education
- County Planning Minerals and Waste
- Historic Environment
- Local Lead Flood Authority
- Public Health