Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

The following comments are in regard to Figure 22, the Spatial Framework Plan.

Problem: there is only one sensibly located public transport stop, the other one is peripheral to the site and far from houses.

Solution: the 'high-quality' public transport route should run more centrally through the site and feature stops closer to all the houses as well as the village centre.

Problem: the primary road runs through the most densely populated parts of the new settlement and the village centre, which guarantees that the maximum number of people will be exposed to air pollution and road danger caused by cars. The village centre will be dominated by cars and unpleasant motor vehicle movements.

Solution: the primary road should swap places with the 'high-quality' public transport route. The primary road should run along the northern fringe of the site. The village centre and private properties should be accessed by car only along secondary streets that do not allow through traffic, in order to minimise exposure to air pollution and road danger.

Problem: the strategic cycling network is too peripheral and doesn't appear to be well connected to the interior of the site.

Solution: a dense grid of closely-spaced walking and cycling routes should criss-cross the site. Walking and cycling routes should be pervasive, direct and the most convenient way to get around the site.

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.'

The following comments are in regard to Fix E.

Problem: the diagram shows that the highest density of dwellings is clustered around the primary street. This choice appears to maximise the exposure of people to road danger, pollution and noise. We oppose this arrangement of primary street and dwellings.

Solution: the primary street should be routed to the north, away from where people are living, and the areas of highest density should be served by quiet streets with few cars that are pleasant for walking and cycling. Any car parking facilities (apart from blue badge spaces) should be kept near the relocated primary street, away from dwellings, in order to avoid excessive motor traffic on residential streets where children are playing.

The following comments are in regard to Principle 4C.

We add the following statement: 'In order to foster safe routes for children, all of the schools, parks and the village centre should be designed in such a way that they can be reached using off-street or quiet-street-only walking and cycling routes suitable for children from every dwelling.'

In general, we oppose the design features known as 'level carriageways' and 'shared surfaces' because they are not appropriate for any streets with significant motor traffic. These features may only be used in areas where motor traffic levels have been reduced to insignificant levels using measures such as filtered permeability and elimination of all motor traffic through-routes.


The following comments are in regard to Fix G.

Without further details we must oppose the terms 'appropriate barriers' and 'soft surfaces': they must be removed from the list. The only appropriate access controls are bollards, at least 80cm tall, spaced at 1.5m intervals on straight sections of path with suitable forewarning and lighting. Any other type of barrier is likely to be exclusionary to people with disabilities, riding cargo bikes or pulling trailers. Routes that are intended to form part of the normal, utility cycling network cannot have soft surfaces. The cycling segment of the route must have sealed surfaces that are suitable for all weather conditions, at all times of year and all times of day. This does not rule out the provision of a soft surface parallel to but separate from the strategic cycle route.

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 Figure 55, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan:

Problem: the first item, the walking and cycling network within the site (and connections to nearby villages and Cambridge) has a non-specific trigger that could result in its delivery being delayed by far too long.

Solution: the walking and cycling network must be delivered before occupation of any dwellings, in order to ensure that good habits are developed by the new residents, and that sustainable transport modes are the natural and obvious ways to get around from day one.

The following comments are in regard to Principle 4C.

We add the following statement: 'In order to foster safe routes for children, all of the schools, parks and the village centre should be designed in such a way that they can be reached using off-street or quiet-street-only walking and cycling routes suitable for children from every dwelling.'

In general, we oppose the design features known as 'level carriageways' and 'shared surfaces' because they are not appropriate for any streets with significant motor traffic. These features may only be used in areas where motor traffic levels have been reduced to insignificant levels using measures such as filtered permeability and elimination of all motor traffic through-routes.


The following comments are in regard to Fix G.

Without further details we must oppose the terms 'appropriate barriers' and 'soft surfaces': they must be removed from the list. The only appropriate access controls are bollards, at least 80cm tall, spaced at 1.5m intervals on straight sections of path with suitable forewarning and lighting. Any other type of barrier is likely to be exclusionary to people with disabilities, riding cargo bikes or pulling trailers. Routes that are intended to form part of the normal, utility cycling network cannot have soft surfaces. The cycling segment of the route must have sealed surfaces that are suitable for all weather conditions, at all times of year and all times of day. This does not rule out the provision of a soft surface parallel to but separate from the strategic cycle route.

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 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.'

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.'

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.'

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.'