Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

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.