Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

(Transport) Maybe provide reference to the CCC Transport Assessment Teams guidelines as to what development sizes need to do would be helpful. https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/business/planning-and-development/developing-new-communities

(Transport) There needs to be clearer and more specific guidance regarding cycle and mobility parking with clear minimum standards.
Given the phasing out of fossil fuelled cars by 2030 and the lifespan of this Local Plan to 2041 we believe that high provision of electric car charging points should be provided. Whilst electric cars are not the answer to all transportation problems, they do have benefits and insuring infrastructure is in place will assist with their adoption.
No reference could be found to electric car charging points in public car parks or on streets. A policy is required on this as otherwise issues will arise with on street parking and charging provision.
This section will require an update following recent announcements: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59369715

(Transport) “would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment”. It is unclear how any airport/aviation development could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, given aviation’s massive carbon emissions, although this may change in the future.

(Education) The County Council has a strong preference for contributions towards educational facilities to be sought through section 106, as opposed to seeking through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This allows for a cost per place to be calculated meaning that contributions are both appropriate and proportionate.

Comments on Evidence Base Documents (Transport Strategy Team)

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Transport Evidence Report November 2020

P22 clearly shows which scenarios performs best in terms of public transport, S01 Densification being best.
4.3 clearly shows the predict highway impacts of the development options, S01 Densification being best this is also true of delay figure 8.
5 Is helpful and shows option 1 or option 7 are the best performing options
The report seems to be cut short and ends at page 35?

Spatial Options Review Supplement minor corrected 12 Sept 21

Layout of the document as landscape made it difficult to read on screen.
2.1 could have been more clearly shown on a map, highlighting the location and volume of the growth figures.
P2 transport infrastructure
Limited opportunity to improve highway infrastructure within the existing urban area. Unclear by what is meant by this. It might be undesirable for a range of reasons to improve highway infrastructure for private car use, but it is desirable to improve it for public transport, and active travel.
Unsure what is meant by sustainable transport infrastructure (which supports all modes of travel).
P4 welcome that broadband and mobile phone signal are highlights as being critical.
Unclear what is mean by improvements will still be required to reduce congestion - is this separate from facilitate mode shift from car or different. It is very hard to reduce congestion without inducing demand.
P6 Agree with the principal that locating housing close to jobs and service will reduce the need to travel. Also need to ensure this includes high quality telecoms for home working.

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Transport Evidence Report Preferred Option Update October 2021

Glossary at the front very helpful.
Useful summary clearly setting out the work that has been carried out and the key findings.
3.2.4 table 8 Figure 4 shows how car trips dominate mode share of all the options tested. However, it is noted that these predictions are based on no mitigation being in place and include existing trips and therefore any additional trips cause by Local Plan development would not be expected to create a significant mode shift given the small percentage.
Table 11 and Figure 5 detail the mode share of additional trips generated by development in each spatial option compared to the mode share of the 2015 base year and the additional trips in the 2041 baseline. SO1 densification creates both the lowest number of new trips and has the highest non-car mode share. S02, S03 and S08 all performed similarly in both number of new trips and non-car mode share.
Table 14 again shows that significant PCU-km and hrs are added to the road network under all development options. SO1 densification has the lowest impact.
Agree with the statement that 5.2.1 that SO 1 Densification is the best performing against all metrics analysed in Chapter 3.
5.3.1 states that SO1 densification is the most sustainable of the eight options- however it should be note that it relies on significant investment see 2.2.12 and it still adds car trips from the 2015 base. Significant mitigation measure in addition to the ones already included in the model are going to be required, if the Local Plan is going to achieve its objective of delivering sustainability, and there is clearly potential for the mitigation measures themselves to not be sustainable.
11.1.3 it is noted that the proposed mitigation ‘trip budget’ policy approach which has identified as required for North East Cambridge, Cambridge East and Cambridge Biomedical Campus was not included in the assessment and mode share of car use for the larger sites within the Preferred Option are therefore likely to be over-estimated trips at this point. The use of ‘trip budgets’ is welcomed as a mitigation measure at other larger sites in the draft Local Plan such as the expansion of Cambourne.
15.1.13 Provides a useful summary of the impacts of the Preferred Option for the emerging Local Plan, in transport terms, and provides reassurance from a transport perspective.

Infrastructure Topic Paper

P6 It is clear that the public want to reduce the need to travel and ensure that sustainable travel options are available. Secondly it is clear that there is a desire for new developments to be supported with appropriate infrastructure.
Highlights that all spatial options show an increase in the number of trips, time taken and delays on the highway network. Highlights that there is a need for further mitigation.
4.5 Proposed Policy Direction
This section is in line with CCC aims and goals. Welcome the requirement for a Low Emissions Strategy, as well as a focus on Active Travel which has numerous known benefits. In terms of transport related challenges, developments which are further away from existing transport links and with poor active travel links are likely to be the hardest to cater for.
Welcome the report highlight that further work is required and that a policy needs to be put in place in addition to policy and plans that are already in place such as LTP.
Chapter 5 will need updated following the recent announcements regarding the provision of EV charging points. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59369715
5.5 welcome the cycle parking provision requirements and the need to accommodate non-standard cycles.
6.2 A10 there is a fine balance between schemes that reduce congestion and those that create capacity and thus induce more traffic to use the road network.
7. Potentially there is a requirement to safeguard land for East West Rail and ensure that enough land is safeguarded for aspects such as active travel provision and key transport improvements.
8. Welcome that only development that is sustainable will be considered at Cambridge Airport. It is unclear how any airport/aviation development cannot have a significant adverse impact on the environment, given aviation’s massive carbon emissions although it is noted that this may change in the future.
9. Due to the likely uptake of electric vehicles it is likely that the power grid is going to require significant upgrades to support this.
11. High speed broadband is an essential service. Broadband and high-quality mobile phone connections have a role to pay in reducing the need to travel by supporting home working.

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Spatial Options Assessment: Carbon Emissions Supplement.

Figure 4 highlights the annual carbon dioxide emissions per home in the mid-plan year 2030, with the medium growth options 1-8 and preferred growth options 9 and 10 with zero carbon policies.

In all growth scenarios transport emissions dominate carbon dioxide emission and are the only ones that change significantly as building energy use and building embodies carbon remain similar for all options.