5.92

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31691

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs K Phillips

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Schools - I am amazed that you have even thought to build schools so close to an airport, aviation pollution, levels of noise, distraction . What health will the pupils be in after years in those conditions.

Full text:

After our visit to public exhibition on 17th August 2017 at St Andrews Church Cherry Hinton.

We would like to make the points below.

A. TRAFFIC - Cherry Hinton High Street/ Airport Way and Coldham's Lane are at the moment often at a standstill, with the added addition of a railway crossing that closes at least twice an hour , movement is at the moment not an easy task. The addition of another 1500 houses, even with a spine road the traffic from this development, would have to feed on to the already congested stated roads.
The added factor of a secondary school, would mean movement of at least 1500 staff and pupils every morning and evening feeding onto the already stated congested roads. The primary school would also generate a huge amount of traffic. ( We see the traffic each school day for Bewick Bridge Primary School , causing complete standstill of Fulbourn Old Drift and causing non movement from the two adjacent estates of traffic and bikes.

A.(b With large developments further afield already in the planning, that use the A14 / Airport Way to access Cambridge the impact of this alone will cease all movement in Cherry Hinton.When the A14 is congested or closed due to accidents, at the moment it becomes impossible to cross the High Street. The A14 which affects Cherry Hinton is also not due for an upgrade.

B. AIR POLLUTION - With so much stationery traffic in Cherry Hinton, in the pass few months seems even worse with cars having to wait to pass each other and complete stand still if a bus comes in to the equation, because of the extra wide cycle lanes and 20mph restrictions, with even more traffic the air pollution will increase to levels unacceptable.


C. SCHOOLS - I am amazed that you have even thought to build schools so close to an airport, aviation pollution, levels of noise, distraction . What health will the pupils be in after years in those conditions.

D. CYCLE WAYS - The cycle way across the tins to the City centre is well used at the moment, BUT dangerous, due to the very sharp bend up and over the railway line - many cyclist have come to grief at this point. Also because of the steepness many cyclist have to get of to push the bikes over - causing even more hazards, with pedestrians as well the cycle way is not safe.

E. RECENT GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER - NEW PLANNING - "The onus should be on good design, realistic local and neighbourhood plans, and should focus on areas that can accommodate it"


F. Cherry Hinton and Teversham will both lose their identity and just become urban sprawl. The now residence of these areas have taken on board many many new homes, expanded and welcomed new comers.
but this proposed development will make life for us very difficult for the reasons stated.


e last observation - If the houses were already there - would an airport be aloud to be built so near to them- I think not. So why has some one come along with this plan?


Thank you for letting us make our remarks and I do hope that common sense prevails.

Additional Comments:
The scheme seems to have not mentioned Doctors surgery and Dentist provision, which at this moment is in Cherry Hinton at crisis point.
The vast expansion of the Addenbrooke's site will also generate much traffic through Cherry Hinton.

Object

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31754

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Em and Kev Ritchie

Representation Summary:

It concerns us that a shortage of school places has been used to justify the inclusion of a primary school and secondary school in this development. Currently, Cherry Hinton has 4 primary schools all of which have undergone significant expansion schemes in recent years. This area of Cherry Hinton is currently served by two secondary schools one of which, Bottisham Village College, has had plans to extend each year group by three form entry and its buildings as a result. Both are part of the same Multi Academy Trust and so form a 'monopoly' this side of the city.

Full text:

Good afternoon, I am a resident of Church End, Cherry Hinton, and attended the public consultation exhibition at St Andrew's Church on 17/8/17 and wish to give our response to proposals. As far as possible, we have grouped these responses according to number/title reference from the original document. They are in no particular order of importance, however we save our most valid and impactful comment until last.

3,5 Character and Form, 3 Urban Form and Gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis, 3 Edges
The report notes that housing in Teversham Drift is 'arranged around internal courtyards' and we wish to point out that this generates issues for residents who desire to park their car right outside their property (or as close as), as inevitably the design of this has meant that some residents cannot, and so parking overspills into surrounding main roads such as March Lane, the main highroad of Teversham Drift and Church End.
The new plans offer no housing of one storey e.g. bungalows, and yet the character and form of this area of housing around Teversham Drift comprises a signifiant community of one storey residences.The new plans offer no care home or senior citizen sheltered housing. Whilst we accept that this may at the moment fall under the 'social housing' requirements by law of new developments, it concerns us that single storey dwellings have been left out. The largest growth demographic in Cambridgeshire is in the 65+ and 80+ age brackets and yet no specific provision has been made for this group, whereas other demographic groups are named in the report.
The report makes mention of potential further housing developments along 'safeguarded land' by Coldham's Lane. This, coupled with the proposed development opposite by the Anderson Group will mean that Cherry Hinton will be joined to Cambridge and Romsey along this arterial link, thereby losing its 'separate village identity', something that this report highlights as important: 'The proposals must create a clear identity that is cognisant of the 'village' character that existing resident of Cherry Hinton cherish'. We echo this and do not want Cherry Hinton to lose its village feel. This corner of Cherry Hinton has already seen division between the districts of City and South Cambs made more visual with the new village sign opposite the NISA shop to mark a boundary, new play equipment has been provided in South Cambs open spaces whereas the play area in Church End was ripped out and never replaced, bus stops around Gazelle Way are labelled Teversham Council. Further division should be avoided.

5 Noise
When purchasing a property this side of Cherry Hinton, awareness of the airport and its day-to-day running are an inevitable factor and one that ultimately cannot be used as a negative if purchase goes ahead. Indeed, residents of Cherry Hinton appreciate our unique relationship with Marshalls and the aircraft that use it: we are treated to aerial displays by the Red Arrows (and not just at Marshalls 100 year celebrations) and by the smaller aircraft that dip and glide above us, it provides a useful landmark, is a valued local employer and is part of the village. We were delighted at the award of MoD contracts for the RAF Hercules earlier this year as a way of continuing its presence. We are concerned that this land development will be used in the future as a case study for noise pollution or for highlighting the danger of flying routes above residential areas and that future pressures will be placed upon Marshalls to close. This is not a chicken/egg situation, the airport was here first, and residents would not want to see re-routing of take offs or runway angles, or closure at all.

3 Utilities
It concerns us that there may have to be a major re-routing of gas supplies during this work, and we do not wish our gas supply to be disturbed, suspended or face any related issues without prior notice and financial recompense.

3 Drainage Features, 5 flooding, flood risk and existing watercourses
There have been historic instances of surface water flooding adjacent to existing drainage ditches which run through the proposed site and into current residential fringes of Cherry Hinton. As acknowledged in the report 'the site is within an area of water stress'. We wholeheartedly support installing any water saving devices, any surface water storage systems or management systems that can be incorporated into the design of buildings and infrastructure.

5 Land Uses, Education
It concerns us that a shortage of school places has been used to justify the inclusion of a primary school and secondary school in this development. Currently, Cherry Hinton has 4 primary schools all of which have undergone significant expansion schemes in recent years. This area of Cherry Hinton is currently served by two secondary schools one of which, Bottisham Village College, has had plans to extend each year group by three form entry and its buildings as a result. Both are part of the same Multi Academy Trust and so form a 'monopoly' this side of the city. It concerns us greatly to hear plans that the proposed secondary school for this development will be a 'Free School' the nature of which as described in local press will not help local secondary students. As a free school this would have the option of selection, and as part of the West London Free School Academy Trust, the Cambridge City Free School will provide a liberal, classical curriculum with instrumental lessons and Latin. As a secondary school teacher, experience shows that these Free Schools inevitably do not provide places for children within catchment area, meaning that students attending this school will place extra pressure on transport infrastructure, and inevitably will result in parents driving their children in to school, placing further parking demands on this new development. This itself will also not aid integration into the village identity.

3 Public transport connections, 5 public transport
Unlike Northstow or Orchard Park we do not have the inclusion of a guided busway network built into this development. At the public meeting, officials were keen to persuade that a large development like this will guarantee a public service infrastructure. The harsh reality is that Cherry Hinton residents struggle to use a bus service that for the most part is run as a monopoly by Stage Coach. Bus services to and from Cherry Hinton have been cut and cut again: the previous service down Coldham's Lane was cut and Wippet attempted to include it in a partial route, and there have been cuts to Citi 1 and 3 in the village with buses changing numbers at designated stops, and the Citi 1 has not met its original ten minute service provision since the first year it was introduced. At one point, it was cheaper to drive our car to the Park and Ride. My husband working shifts cannot use the bus service at either exreme of the day. Rather than promise something new, please work harder to ensure that existing promises with services, routes and fares, and competition are met.

3 Urban form and gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis: parking
Parking is a big issue this side of Cherry Hinton. We have seen previously empty pockets of land being developed and this has provided a squeeze on parking opportunities. Examples of this include the development of the Rosemary Branch, the development of the old shop on the corner of March Lane, the work beginning at Hatherdene Close, proposals by the Anderson Group and more immediately the development of Neath Farm Court. Residents here are particularly suspicious of promises surrounding parking since the developers reneged on promises of parking and a roundabout, leaving instead a landscaped siding and a dangerous exit onto a blind bend. Parking problems have been exacerbated by the increase in new businesses based around cars, with both garage businesses still breaking Highways Laws by parking across pavements, on double yellow lines and crossing verges to leave vehicles. There are two businesses that park big commercial vehicles in the side streets around. We know of commuters parking in these streets free of charge and then either walking or taking the bus into town. Any new development must make parking a priority. It is all very well and good to quote green ideals at the public exhibition but the reality is that most houses have two cars, and sometimes more given the rise of young adults living at home due to exorbitant living costs. Please consider extensive underground parking as an option. Please consider town house styles with parking at ground level as at Great Kneighton. Please do not place covenants on parking such as those at Orchard Park which state for example that commercial vans cannot be parked on the street. In reality all these do is move the problem down the road to existing residential areas, dealing with their own issues.

3 Public footpath, 5 cycle and pedestrian movement, Access and Primary Routes
We have saved our most pressing concern for last. Option A still leaves Church End, March Lane and Teversham Drift as a rat run. As the report states any placement of primary access routes should not create a 'bypass peripheral route' that will jigsaw into an existing rat run with significant, documented issues that have been reported extensively to the police, insurance companies and public council meetings. Option B will only create another new rat run. This new development places significant importance on access for pedestrians and cyclists. The main access route for cyclists and pedestrians into and out of the development will follow the existing footpath line, meaning that these people will be funnelled into the junction at the base of March Lane and Church End: a blind corner with parking issues on both side of the road, and documented accidents and speeding issues. There have been numerous local requests for action to solve the existing problems: speed restrictions introduced ( a 20mph speed limit, speed humps) simply do not work. Requests to local businesses flouting Highways Laws have had little sustained impact. Currently residents are petitioning to close the road between March Lane and Reilly Way. The footpaths along all these interconnecting roads have had no resurfacing work done in ten years and are in a dangerous uneven state, despite being dug up for utilities attentions. The footpath on one side of Church End bordering the green just simply stops. If this road closure does not happen then a development with 1200 residences, plus members of the public using new centre facilities, plus school children accessing the two new proposed schools will be forced down a funnel leading to one of the most dangerous junctions in the village. PLEASE use this (as yet) future plan to help with some joined up thinking to deal with the current situation. This junction is already dangerous, it has already been proven with speed cameras that the corner does not slow vehicles down, myself and my husband have both been the subject of collisions (non-fault) reported to the police and claimed for via insurance within 20m of it. With an increase in usage the odds of a fatality increase. Here is the only point on which we are unashamedly NIMBYs. Close Church End.

We appreciate that these are our opinions and views. We appreciate that not everyone will or can agree, and that some level of fait-accompli has probably already happened. We trust in the consultation process and that our views will be read, applied if relevant and discarded if not. Many thanks for taking the time to add our views to this process,

Em and Kev Ritchie

Support

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31803

Received: 29/09/2017

Respondent: Teversham Church of England Primary School

Representation Summary:

The proposed new primary school (2FE) will be just 600 metres from our primary school. We are very concerned that another school is proposed in addition to Cherry Hinton C of E Primary, Bewick Bridge Primary, Wings Primary and Spinney Primary. If this school is built before it is known that there are no available spaces in the current schools, the education of the children in these schools will be put at risk as the financial viability of these schools will be under threat. We are not objecting unless there are school places available in local schools or that the school is built before the houses are occupied.

Full text:

Response by Teversham C of E Primary School Governors

The Full Governing Body of the Teversham Church of England Primary School located just 500 metres from the proposed development would like to make the following contribution to the consultation process on the draft SPD.
1. The proposed new primary school (2FE) will be just 600 metres from our primary school (1FE) currently with space for another 60 children and the grounds for expansion. We are very concerned that another school is proposed in addition to Cherry Hinton C of E Primary, Bewick Bridge Primary, Wings Primary and Spinney Primary all also within 500 metres of the proposed school and with space for more children. We can understand that 1200 new homes will generate many primary aged children, however if this school is built before it is known that there are no available spaces in the current schools, the education of the children in these schools will be put at risk as the financial viability of these schools will be under threat. We the Governors of Teversham School want a categorical assurance that this new primary school will not be built until the majority of the proposed houses are sold and occupied and the demand cannot be satisfied by the existing schools confirmed.
2. Just four years ago Cherry Hinton C of E Infants School was greatly expanded to become a primary school. At the same time Cherry Hinton Community Junior School was greatly expanded to become Bewick Bridge Primary. The proposed Airport way development plans show new cycle paths from the new houses to the door of our school Teversham C of E Primary which has not yet been expanded. It would surely be more logical and economically wise to expand a recently Ofsted inspected "Good" school that is within walking distance on newly provided pathways. Because of our special ethos and caring reputation we expect to attract many children from this new community.
3. Airport Way traffic. A new Secondary school attracting children from a very wide area and 1200 houses plus the new 1200 houses on Newmarket Road (Wings Estate) will generate a very large increase in the volume of traffic on Airport Way Teversham. It is currently very difficult to enter Airport Way from Teversham village so with this increased volume it will be almost impossible. Because of the special ethos of our school many parents want to bring their children to our school from Newmarket road Cambridge and Cherry Hinton so this also concerns us and the lack of safe crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. We thus want to very strongly urge the planners to design in safe and secure crossings of Airport Way. Considering the very greatly increased volume of traffic it surely justifies some form of pedestrian and cycle bridge to cause the least interruption in traffic flow.

Object

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31829

Received: 04/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Naomi Naomi Goldsbrough

Representation Summary:

I am concerned that if the school is built and finished before the housing development, many children from Cherry Hinton could be tempted to attend due to it being a new building and inevitably having better resources. Has the impact on the existing schools been considered with regard to this? I have also heard that the school (s) could be private school (s) and if this is the case it's unlikely the school will be serving the community of Cherry Hinton.

Full text:

I am writing to outline my concerns regarding the proposed development of the land north of Cherry Hinton.
1) Traffic- please would you consider the impact on the traffic by introducing the new development and maybe consider additional or alternate access roads to the development. At peak times and with trains already causing long traffic queues, currently the proposed access roads will only add to this causing major congestion. I understand cycle routes are planned, but I fear they will not be fully utilised thus causing traffic issues.

2) School- I am concerned that if the school is built and finished before the housing development, many children from Cherry Hinton could be tempted to attend due to it being a new building and inevitably having better resources. Has the impact on the existing schools been considered with regard to this? If the schools have less pupils attending , that means less funding which will hugely impact on the existing children and community of Cherry Hinton. I have also heard that the school (s) could be private school (s) and if this is the case it's unlikely the school will be serving the community of Cherry Hinton as the new development will have a generous proportion of social housing unable to access the school, and thus attracts further traffic from people attending outside of the area.

3) Community Centre- This really needs to be thought through! We have an exciting Village Centre in the heart of Cherry Hinton where residents like myself, who live less then a mile away from it, cannot access the discounted rates it offers for exercise classes, for example, because I live in a different local authority area (South Cambs). This is ridiculous considering I personally, am extremely involved in the Cherry Hinton community by being a childminder, involved in the parish church and vice chair of Bewick Bridge Friends Committee. So will you ensure the new Community Centre is available for all in an equal manner?

4) St Andrew's Parish Church- placed between the existing Cherry Hinton and the planned new development- the church will be key in providing links between the Community and I urge this to be a consideration when planning communal buildings and their purpose. The church will be very valuable in the integration of the existing and proposed development and this needs to be considered going forward.

Object

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31836

Received: 18/09/2017

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Education officers generally support the principles set out for education provision and the locations of the schools. However, there does remain a need to retain appropriate flexibility around the building location for the primary school. Both in terms of the site itself, and the surrounding area.

Full text:

Each representation is prefixed with 'support', 'object' or 'comment' to clarify the status of each comment.

EDUCATION

SUPPORT: Education officers generally support the principles set out for education provision and the locations of the schools. However, there does remain a need to retain appropriate flexibility around the building location for the primary school. Both in terms of the site itself, and the surrounding area.

COMMENT: The gas main should not run under any part of the school sites, and any agreed school site will need to meet the site specification requirements set out by the County Council.

COMMENT: The 2.3 hectare primary school site is sufficient to accommodate a 2 form of entry (420 place) school, and sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed development on this site. Officers have encouraged the inclusion of additional safeguarded land to future proof the primary school site for expansion, should the adjacent land come forward for development in the future.

SUPPORT: The principle of secondary school playing fields in the green belt is acceptable to the Education Place Planning team, although it is recognised that there will need to be a balance between providing appropriate boundary treatments, and maintaining the character of the green area.

COMMENT: The local planning authority should satisfy themselves that the greenbelt tests will be met to not prejudice the deliverability of a secondary school.

COMMENT: For completeness, the map of surrounding schools, on page 18 of the SPD, appears to omit Abbey Meadows Primary School, which is within the 1600m isochrone and St Philip's Church of England Primary School, just outside of the 1600m isochrone.

COMMENT: It seems unnecessary, in paragraph 5.94, to state that the secondary school will be a minimum of 6FE to ensure it is educationally and financially viable. Simply state the secondary school will be a minimum of 6 forms of entry (900 places) to serve the SPD site and surrounding areas.

COMMENT: The primary school will include provision for early years. Officers would encourage any development of this nature to also consider provision for a commercially operated nursery. This could be ensuring the appropriate use class designation is included in any planning applications.

MINERALS AND WASTE

OBJECT: The SPD omits to include the planning policy of the adopted Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core Strategy (2011), and the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Mineral and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012); both of which are part of the adopted development plan for the area.

COMMENT: The adopted Core Strategy seeks to make adequate provision for waste management to meet Cambridgeshire's needs over the period to 2026, and makes allocations for this purpose. The Cherry Hinton site which is the subject of this SPD forms part of a larger Area of Search for the potential location of waste management facilities allocated by Policy SSP W1E of the Site Specific Proposals Plan; and this allocation is safeguarded through Policy SSP W8H which designates a Waste Consultation Area over and around the Area of Search.

COMMENT: Policy SSP W1E allocates the Area of Search at Cambridge East for a range of waste management uses which potentially includes recycling facilities, a Household Recycling Centre, Temporary Inert Waste Recycling, Materials Recovery Facility, and suitable new waste management uses.

COMMENT: Policy CS30 of the Core Strategy provides the overarching policy for Waste Consultation Areas and this states that development will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that this will not prejudice existing or future planned waste management operations.

COMMENT: These policies will need to be included in the policy section of the SPD and addressed in due course. It should also be recognised that the wider Area of Search for the potential location of waste management facilities has been subject to development elsewhere, and has therefore been reduced in size.

FLOODS and WATER

COMMENT: Page 20, Paragraph 3.21 is incomplete ' ...onsite attenuation provided to mitigate risk to the wider catchment. Maximise and incorporate existing'.

TRANSPORT

OBJECT: Page 52 - 5.18 -The SPD should highlight that the requirements of the final spine road design will be determined by CCC and Local Authorities prior to submission of a Planning Application. The wording in the consultation version is that this will be decided through the planning application process, but the County Council require this to be decided prior to a planning application is submitted, therefore wording should be altered to prior to submission of a planning application.

COMMENT: Page 46 - Movement - the 'vehicular access points' on figure 39 are not very clear, these need to be made clearer.

COMMENT: Page 47- 5.13 should refer to Coldham's Lane/ Barnwell Road not Drive.

COMMENT: Page 51 - 5.16-The spine road design speed should be agreed with Highways
Development Control - 20mph seems most appropriate This should actually refer to Highways

Development Management or the Highway Authority or County Highways rather than Highways
Development Control.

COMMENT: Page 53- Figure 45 is small and not clear to read.

COMMENT: Page 59 -car parking provision should be compared to needs assessment e.g. car ownership levels. This has not been addressed.

PUBLIC HEALTH

The SPD has been compared to the New Housing Developments and the Built Environment Joint
Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for Cambridgeshire1.

The JSNA contains an evidence review of the built environment's impact on health and has distilled the evidence into the following themes:
* Generic evidence supporting the built environment's impact on health.
* Green space.
* Developing sustainable communities.
* Community design (to prevent injuries, crime, and to accommodate people with disabilities).
* Connectivity and land use mix.
* Communities that support healthy ageing.
* House design and space.
* Access to unhealthy/"Fast Food".
* Health inequality and the built environment.

The SPD has therefore been reviewed against these themes to ensure the SPD has identified possible areas which can impact human health and wellbeing and therefore should be mitigated through design and master planning.

For ease of reference the comments on the SPD have been grouped under the nine themes contained in the JSNA as mentioned above.

COMMENT: A. Generic evidence supporting the built environment's impact on health. It is welcomed that the SPD recognises that "where necessary, appropriate mitigation of environmental and health impacts will be required within any proposal to ensure future residents are provided with a satisfactory living environment" (Page 2- 1.3 of the SPD). And that the SPD acknowledges both the emerging Cambridge Local Plan, and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan in that in section "2.9 Proposals for residential development will be supported if... "acceptable mitigation of environmental and health impacts (including noise) from the airport can be
provided... " In addition the 5.71 of the Open space and recreation section within the SPD states
that the development should "also encourage healthy lifestyles and the use of sustainable travel modes, such as cycling."

1 http://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk / joint-strategic-needs-assessment/current-isna-reports/new-housinq­
developments-and-built-environment

COMMENT: B. Green space.
There are concerns that the provision of green space may not be sufficient, although the SPD references the policies within each local plan, the labels for pocket parks on the indicative map on page 63 do not match the description on the indicative map on page 43 where they are classed as green corridors, these are not the same and should be clarified.

In addition the dry swales should not be included within the allocation for green space as these may not be available for recreation depending on the condition of the swale e.g. in exceptional flood circumstances.

COMMENT: C. Developing sustainable communities.
The provision of electric charging points within the development is welcomed, however, the provision needs to be more specific and it is suggested the SPD reflects the need for EV charging points in different settings e.g. Residential, Commercial, Carparks etc. also the SPD should reflect the different types of EV charging points (standard and rapid).

It would be beneficial if the SPD had an aspiration that all dwellings are provided with EV charging points.

The acknowledgement that air quality needs to be considered at the design stage (Page 56) is welcomed and the SPD should also consider domestic use of energy as well as energy production i.e. combustion sources within domestic dwellings

The statements regarding s106 monies for 'primary health care facilities' on page 75, needs to be wider. The category of infrastructure should be 'health care facilities' rather than 'primary health care facilities' in order to allow different sectors of the NHS to decide what type of provision would best suit that location i.e. primary and community care provision. In addition the location of any expansion, or new facility may not be within Cherry Hinton so it might be better to reword the requirement to allow a flexible location.

COMMENT: D. Community design (to prevent injuries, crime, and to accommodate people with disabilities).
The SPD does reference the need for "a wide choice, type and mix of housing will be provided to
meet the needs of different groups in the community, including families with children, older people and people with disabilities." However this seems only to apply to housing. The needs of disabled or older people and other marginalised groups should be taken into account in all aspects of the masterplan including, but not limited to, the design of green space, transport connectivity etc.

There is no aspiration within the SPD to tackle crime through innovative design.

The aspiration for encouraging developers to incorporate a traffic calmed environment is welcomed. Particularly the reference to using street design, intersecting cross routes to create a natural reduction in speeds, and setting the spine road speed limit to 20mph. The SPD could consider making the entire development a 20mph zone.

COMMENT: E. Connectivity and land use mix.
The incorporation of cycle links, and the access to public transport is welcomed but the s106 requirements (page 75) could be widened to increase the uptake of cycling and walking within, and from the development. For example, any emerging travel plan should include personal travel plans, cycle purchase vouchers etc. In addition the connectivity considerations need to relate to the provision of adequate cycle parking facilities in both commercial buildings and domestic dwellings.

COMMENT: F. Communities that support healthy ageing.
Although the SPD references the need for "a wide choice, type and mix of housing will be provided to meet the needs of different groups in the community, including families with children, older people and people with disabilities." It does not address the needs of older people specifically.

The SPD should make it explicit that the needs of older people, particularly those with dementia should be taken into account as part of the overall design and master planning.

COMMENT: G. House design and space.
The requirement that the development should include a mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet projected future household needs within Cambridge including integrated housing, and dwellings designed to provide adaptability and flexibility is welcomed.

The SPD could go further and recommend the proportions of dwellings that are built to the Government's 'Approved Document M' standards to ensure that people are able to access and use buildings and their facilities.

COMMENT: H. Access to unhealthy/"Fast Food".
The SPD could reflect the need to address obesogenic environments that encourage people to eat unhealthily and not do enough exercise by encouraging healthy lifestyle choices through innovate design.

COMMENT: I. Health inequality and the built environment.
The SPD needs to address the need for local employment opportunities further.

ARCHAEOLOGY

COMMENT: The site has been subject to a programme of archaeological evaluation, the results of which indicate that significant archaeological remains survive in the area. Any planning
application will require a programme of archaeological excavation, secured by condition, as appropriate methodology for mitigating the development impact.