Question 9

Mostly yes

No comment

Neutral

It's naive not to expect people coming into the area not to drive, particularly those coming to work - public transport is not enough.

Nothing chosen

LOADED QUESTION. People will always need cars. You must make space or they will just park in other areas.

Not at all

Why are we always down on the motorists? After all they do contribute to the cost of roadways unlike the cycling fraternity.

Not at all

The whole of this plan centres around cycling fanatics. Electric and hydrogen powered vehicles destroy most of the pro-cycle arguments.

Not at all

NO. People are lazy and will always use cars - sometimes 2-3 per household! Off-street parking and garages and car ports will 'tidy up' the area.

Not at all

You want to discourage unnecessary car usage. That means I leave my car at home. With 0.5 parking spaces per home cars will be everywhere. You are discouraging car ownership not car usage.

Mostly yes

No comment

Not at all

Better/cheaper/more frequent public transport needed. More speed bumps and width restrictions.

Not at all

No comment.

Not at all

Building work will double and car travel!

Mostly not

More public transport required.

Not at all

Commuter parking blocking easy access of emergency services on Hurst Park Avenue and now spreading to Orchard, Highfield and Leys Avenue. The Ascham Road example is needed now!

Neutral

No comment.

Mostly yes

No comment.

Nothing chosen

If you are in affordable housing you need to have a livelihood and may need cars and vans for work. Will Civil Parking Enforcement be allowed in SCDC? Can we take active measures to enforce? Contributions to the revenue cost of wardens for 20 years? Not having through routes, and having car barns, is a good decision. Suggest using the Amsterdam model that you cannot buy a parking space until you have lived there for two years. Then you can buy, but the space costs as much as your apartment did. Please put in provision for e-bikes, battery charging and hire. Cycle routes in Milton were designed in FIRST - to ensure they have priority. Give priority to cycle routes (disappointing that the second planning application by the station moved the cycle route). Must have an excellent public transport network - to support travel choices from the start. We want to design this for people like us - but also for the elderly who may not be able to get around so easily. Milton is worried that everyone will park here. The access road to the aggregates depot must not go through residential areas.

Nothing chosen

Further comments: No comment

Neutral

It is important that sustainable, active travel is encouraged and vehicle traffic is managed. The area should be designed to make walking and cycling the easy and natural choice. It will also be important to be “more efficient about how car parking is allocated” as proposed and limit the amount of parking that is built for new homes. More work is required on this, and as included in the comments on Policy 22 below, there should not be a blanket requirement for each land parcel to reduce its existing car parking allocation / occupancy.

Neutral

In order to create a walkable, cyclable and sustainable neighbourhood which does not increase pressure on the road network around the area, development is proposed to be subject to strict trip budgets which will limit the number of vehicle trips allowed to and from each site, and reduced levels of car parking. Draft Policy 22 : Managing motorised vehicles sets out the trip budget principles and quotas, and the ratio of parking spaces that will be permitted for new development. Brookgate is comfortable future phases of Cambridge North can be brought forward in accordance with the external car and parking budgets set out in Draft Policy 22 and the Transport Evidence Base AAP Report (September 2019). CB1 around Cambridge Station provides a strong local example of low parking office and residential development and evidence from CB1 indicates low car parking can work. The Site has good public transport connectively, the CGB, frequent local buses (the Citi 2) and Park and Rides services, a mainline railway station and good cycle and pedestrian connectively to Cambridge City Centre and the cycle network in general. The Site can therefore support a low car parking strategy due to the abundance of other non-car mode options available. There are also significant opportunities to further enhance non-car modes of transport and to increase the number of ‘internal trips’. As such, there are significant opportunities to build a community where people can live and work, commuting by foot or bike or public transport within the NEC AAP area and surrounding urban area. Furthermore, there are emerging strategic schemes, such as the CAM which will provide a high frequency metro services between the Site and surrounding employment hubs and high-tech clusters of Greater Cambridge. With respect to the potential Maths School at Cambridge North, the school will have a Green Travel Plan and will look to minimise car to school transport and maximise encouragement of sustainable forms of transport.

Not at all

• There is still no provision for an extra road linking the area between Cambridge North and Fen Road. The increase in trains along the railway means the railway crossing is closed for long times during the day and people and businesses are effectively locked out of their area for quite a lot of the day. There needs to be an extension of one of the roads in the new development going into this area. • Milton Road Residents' Association is pleased to see that the development aims to reduce car use and encourage cycling and walking, but cars are not banned. There is just a hopeful expectation that there will be less. If that proves not to be the case and if little provision has been made for car parking, then car owners will simply park in the surrounding streets, mainly in East Chesterton. The leaflet states that there will be 0.5 parking spaces per new home. That means potentially 4,000 extra parking spaces in North Cambridge. • This also raises questions about deliveries, traders, etc, coming into the area. Where will they park? Most deliveries are under time constraints and therefore park directly outside people’s homes. Most traders need to go back and forth to their vans. The roads are to be 6.5m wide and there could be any amount of people parked outside the flats during day and night. • The leaflet states there will be ‘no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road and King’s Hedges’. How on earth can this be true? There will be the endless HGVs, cranes, all sorts of vehicles coming as they build the development, along with extra noise. After that there will be people outside the area driving to the new jobs plus all the vehicles that the residents will use and those that will deliver their food and all the goods they have ordered on line. And of course there will have to be extra buses.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

• The proposed street hierarchy is good, provided it extends to the outer junctions of the development where, in the past, designs have tended to default to maximising capacity and priority for motor vehicles (e.g. Eddington and Darwin Green junctions with Huntingdon Rd and Madingley Rd). • The use of contemporary data on car parking requirements is largely irrelevant to planning a net-zero development, which will require very different styles of living. • 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling implies that private car ownership will continue to be the norm for 50% of resident families, couples and sole occupiers. It equates to approximately 4,000 additional cars in the city, sitting unused for, on average, 96.5% of the time. That is not efficient or sustainable. • Car clubs and pools make more efficient use of far fewer cars. The development should be designed around active, public and shared transport, not private car ownership. • How will a ‘car-barn’ (multi-storey car park) be kept safe and secure? • As both technology, social attitudes and employment practices are all changing rapidly, it is imperative that NEC travel needs and options are reviewed regularly through the development of the action, outline and detailed plans. • There need to be loading bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading every 40– 50m to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways). • Provision of a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries is essential. • Secure lockers, including refrigerated units, are needed within 100m of every front door to facilitate efficient and flexible home deliveries. • Though we applaud and support the ambition of the ‘trip budget’ approach to maintaining current traffic levels, we do not believe its viability has been demonstrated theoretically or practically. • None of the scenarios modelled in the Transport Evidence Base matches what is being proposed in the AAP (see Figure 10). Therefore, evidence is lacking that the ‘trip budget’ approach for redistributing road trip demand is viable in theory. • Setting a ceiling of 4,185 parking spaces for around 32,000 workers (1 space per 7.6 workers) requires an action plan with teeth. Yet there appear to be no practical measures proposed for how to force existing sites to reduce parking provision and car trips, yet alone at a faster rate than new homes and offices create additional demand. • The “if possible” qualification in the strategy (see Figure 11) is potentially fatal. What happens if existing occupiers of the science and business parks find that removing parking spaces hurts their ability to recruit? If that gives rise to resistance to continuing the phase-out or, worse, a demand to reinstate parking, where does that leave the viability of the unbuilt parts of NEC? • It would be wholly unacceptable for parking to be relocated, say, to an expanded Milton P&R, or some other location in the green belt.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

This is not my area of expertise, but I applaud the emphasis on increasing walking, cycling, use of public transport. However, I am still concerned that a major new development here will increase traffic on the already congested roads nearby. Even the 0.5 parking space per household will mean a large number of extra cars.

Mostly yes

Further comments: Please see accompanying letter/statement From Letter: The encouragement given to use of sustainable travel modes, rightly combining the excellent accessibility to existing and proposed public transport, pedestrian and cycle connections with practical measures to reduce car use, is supported. The approach taken is considered compatible with that adopted in the proposals for Waterbeach New Town East, and indeed there are clear comparisons that can be drawn in this regard. These can be seen in respect of public transport access, and in particular the rail and multi­ modal interchange facilities available, as well as the priority given to designing for pedestrian and cycle movement within the development and the wider area, in addition to the application of innovative measures to discourage car usage, such as incorporation of car barns/remote parking. As noted above, in relation to Question 2, however, it is considered that section 2.1.3 Connections does not fully reflect the full range of non-car links with Waterbeach New Town. Whilst reference is made to the potential for a Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) which may serve North East Cambridge and connect with central Cambridge and the wider area, including Waterbeach, and to planned strategic cycle links (along Mere Way and Waterbeach Greenway), no mention is made of the rail link between the two strategic development areas. In the context of discouraging car travel, it is important that all available public transport opportunities are fully reflected within the AAP, with particular regard to this direct rail connection between these two growth areas.

Nothing chosen

Q9 Care needs to be taken not to endanger equestrians in the race to provide cycling facilities. Equestrians must not be left sandwiched between fast moving vehicular traffic and speeding cyclists. This will not apply to all roads but it could to some.

Mostly not

Further comments: We feel this is a bold experiment with regards to lack of parking spaces that will ultimately fail. Although connectivity to Cambridge North is good we believe better connectivity to external villages and more cycle routes are needed.

Mostly not

• We support the proposed street hierarchy is good, provided it extends to the outer junctions of the development where, in the past, designs have tended to default to maximising capacity and priority for motor vehicles (e.g. Eddington and Darwin Green junctions with Huntingdon Rd and Madingley Rd). • The use of contemporary data on car parking requirements is largely irrelevant to planning a net-zero development, which will require very different styles of living. • 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling implies that private car ownership will continue to be the norm for 50% of resident families, couples and sole occupiers. It equates to approximately 4,000 additional cars in the city, sitting unused for, on average, 96.5% of the time. That is not efficient or sustainable. • Car clubs and pools make more efficient use of far fewer cars. The development should be designed around active, public and shared transport, not private car ownership. • How will a ‘car-barn’ (multi-storey car park) be kept safe and secure? • As both technology, social attitudes and employment practices are all changing rapidly, it is imperative that NEC travel needs and options are reviewed regularly through the development of the action, outline and detailed plans. • There need to be loading bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading every 40–50m to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways). • Provision of a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries is essential. • Secure lockers, including refrigerated units, are needed within 100m of every front door to facilitate efficient and flexible home deliveries. • Though we applaud and support the ambition of the ‘trip budget’ approach to maintaining current traffic levels, we do not believe its viability has been demonstrated theoretically or practically. • Setting a ceiling of 4,185 parking spaces for around 32,000 workers (1 space per 7.6 workers) requires an action plan with teeth. Yet there appear to be no practical measures proposed for how to force existing sites to reduce parking provision and car trips, yet alone at a faster rate than new homes and offices create additional demand. • It would be wholly unacceptable for parking to be relocated, say, to an expanded Milton P&R, or some other location in the green belt. • None of the scenarios modelled in the Transport Evidence Base matches what is being proposed in the AAP (see Figure 10). Therefore, evidence is lacking that the ‘trip budget’ approach for redistributing road trip demand is viable in theory. FIGURE 23 SAVED AS ATTACHMENT • The “where possible” qualification in the strategy is potentially fatal. What happens if existing occupiers of the science and business parks find that removing parking spaces hurts their ability to recruit? If that gives rise to resistance to continuing the phase-out or, worse, a demand to reinstate parking, where does that leave the viability of the unbuilt parts of NEC? This process gives rise to a range of between 1 space per 84 sqm and 1 space per 128 sqm depending on the scenario, which sit within the range of standards implemented elsewhere, and thus considered an acceptable ceiling. Importantly, however, these implied standards should be considered as maxima, and not targets in their own right, with lower levels of provision adopted wherever possible so that NEC can move towards becoming a less car dominated new urban quarter for Cambridge. Overall this analysis suggests that site-wide employment parking should not exceed 4,185 spaces but that through good design, non-car accessibility, promotion of non-car transport, and active management a lower level should be sought. A site-wide approach to managing and allocating employment-based car parking within this ceiling should be implemented to, where possible, reduce building specific allocations and allow this to be balanced across the site.

Nothing chosen

No comment

Mostly yes

No answer given