Question 9

Mostly not

The street layout and design of the site includes many aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, the plans rely heavily on good links to improved walking and cycling routes outside the area and the implementation of planned public transport schemes such as CAM metro. They also assume levels of car ownership which are too high for a low-carbon development: proposals should start with a more carbon-realistic limit on trips and parking spaces. There is no transformational step-change in terms of public transport provision that would help to achieve a reduction in car travel. Without easy, cheap, regular, reliable forms of public transport people will simply remain wedded to their cars. Cycling provision is mostly squeezed into the existing ‘network’, and the original ‘car barns’ on the edges of the development appear to have disappeared. Is it realistic to assume, as this claims, that there will be ‘no extra vehicle movements’ on Milton Road? The measures to restrict cars are not definitive, such as saying that parking on the science park will be reduced “where possible”. Parking on the science park must be reduced everywhere, with viable alternatives provided (external travel hubs, cycle greenways to every village, etc). I fully support the ideas put forward by the Smarter Cambridge Transport initiative.

Mostly not

The aims of the vision are laudable but I do not think they will be met in reality. The plans include parking space for 4,000 cars - even with good cycling provision etc it seems unrealistic to think that there will be no impact on traffic on Milton Road and elsewhere in the area. I agree with the concerns raised by Cambridge Cycling Campaign that trip budgets rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. If services such as transport links, cycle hire and car clubs are not in place before residents move in, car dependency becomes locked in.

Neutral

We need a road bridge over the railway to connect the traveller community to the city. The existing road access is via the much disliked level crossing. If we want to genuinely create a diverse and inclusive North East Cambridge we would find a way to pragmatically incorporate this into the plans for the area.

Neutral

Whilst a lot is been done to discourage car use by the residents of the area those travelling into the area for work and leisure are still likely to need to use cars. Without significant investment and management of the trains those going though cambridge North station are not going to be able to cope. There are a lot of villages around Cambridge which aren't served by trains and only very infrequently by expensive and unreliable busses. More needs to be done to ensure those residents can travel into the north east area without requiring the use of a car. If a lot of individuals in the area are required to drive for work other reasons regularly not allowing through routes could actually increase air pollution by increasing journey times. How will those visiting friends and family living in the north east area travel to them and how will car use be discouraged?

Mostly not

Providing less parking spaces is not working realistically towards a car free environment. Not everyone can walk or cycle, for example elderly and disabled people. You have to provide good affordable public transport to make people give up their cars.No new cycling provision means cyclists will have to join the already congested network. You have made a vague undertaking to reduce car parking on the Science Park, where possible. Deliveries to the development will increase traffic on Milton Road

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Of course I agree with the stated aims of reducing the need to travel and making active and sustainable modes of transport the norm while ensuring the needs of all members of society are met. The aspiration of no additional car journeys on Milton Road is laudable, but the plans are not robust enough to make this a reality. At a rate of one parking space per two dwellings, this development will add 4000 cars to our already overcrowded local roads. Milton Road already suffers from congestion at almost all times of day, and a slew of developments (including A14 and A10 upgrades, Northstowe, Waterbeach, the various Cambridge developments) are set to make this worse. Policy 22 states that “appropriate space for […] car pool hire scheme vehicles” will be incorporated into parking provision. I call for a greater emphasis on such schemes and a more ambitious reduction in private car ownership. The consultation mentions the existing “good public transport links” to North East Cambridge. It will be necessary to continue to invest in services such as the Guided Busway and Cambridge North Station and increase their capacity as needed to keep pace with demand. Requiring additional Park & Ride capacity simply pushes additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. I would like to echo concerns raised by Cambridge Cycling Campaign that trip budgets rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. If services such as transport links, cycle hire and car clubs are not in place before residents move in, car dependency becomes locked in. Care must also be taken to maintain high-quality walking and cycling access throughout the different periods of construction, including to any ‘meanwhile projects’ on the site or in surrounding communities.

Mostly not

The street layout and design of the site includes many aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, the plans rely heavily on good links to improved walking and cycling routes outside the area and the implementation of planned public transport schemes such as CAM metro. Specifically, access via Moss Bank/Fen Road to the city is insufficient and unsafe in its current usage. Milton Road does not provide sufficient access for active transport. Furthermore, without suitable provisions, such as adequate recreational facilities within the site and access to green space within and outside the site, individuals will be forced into their cars in order to gain access to other areas of the city.

Mostly not

Reliance upon “smart ways to manage deliveries into the area” and “future public transport improvements” is not adequate – these measures need to be in place in advance of the proposed development.

Not at all

The current science park workers, who mostly drive in to fill the existing 15000 jobs on the site, aren’t going to leave their homes in outlying areas to move into 1 or 2 bedroom flats in the new district. Where did the figure of 4,400 unused car parking spaces come from and are these to be built on in the new plan? Most families would want to shop at a supermarket and if none on the site would probably want to use a car or have a home delivery.

Not at all

Residents will still have cars and will park elsewhere

Not at all

Limiting car parking doesn't limit car ownership, and building this without having a plan for what our rapid transit system will be is nonsensical. The claim that there will be no extra vehicle trips on Milton Road is nonsensical, there is no way at all you can know that. You need a solid transit plan in place before starting, you have no such plan.

Not at all

Although broadly supporting the principle of reduced car use in NECAAP, I OBJECT to your emphasis on rationing car spaces as a push factor and think more must be done as pull factors. conclusion Limiting the amount of available car parking space excludes those people who must rely on cars for their mobility. You appear to be designing communities for the young and able, and not a broader age group including the old and infirm. Such people will be disadvantaged, confined to their homes with no means of escape to anywhere remotely pleasant. Furthermore, you should anticipate the changing pattern of car type and use that is likely in the near future. Finally you should recognise that rationing car spaces in NECAAP will simply lead to use of nearby streets and overcrowding. This will affect Kings Hedges, Abbey Wards and Fen Ditton so solutions need to be put forward.

Mostly yes

I support the travel budget approach and have used it on other multi-plot redevelopments. The target being set is challenging given the circumstances in NECAAP area. As the Transport Study makes clear, achieving the proposed level of residential development (even with reduced parking/discouragement of car use/internalisation of trips) ultimately depends on getting existing science park and other employees out of their cars and using other modes in order to free up capacity. It also depends on essentially externalising parking provision to new Park and Ride sites. The transport study estimates this as needing £45 million investment in 2000 park and ride spaces, noting that this will be 2.5 times the existing provision at Milton P and R and this will need to be in Green Belt north of the A14. As with other aspects of NECAAP, such as open space and biodiversity, this is a direct outcome of the over-ambitious housing and employment targets on NECAAP, displacing parking/open space needs to locations outside the plan area. Taking a broader view of sustainability and planning for Cambridge, this is a sub-optimal solution and should be reviewed.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

Why allow even this many cars per home - why not reduce it further?

Mostly yes

Trip Budget and connectivity The vehicular trip budget approach to managing traffic within and in the vicinity of the site is welcomed and fully supported. Technical work demonstrated that the highway network in the vicinity of the area already operates at capacity in the peak periods and the development of the site in the traditional manner of predict and provide would not be acceptable. The shift towards ‘decide and provide’ – in essence deciding what transport characteristics the site should have and providing the means to achieving that - lends itself to this trip budget approach. Whilst dealing with the highway capacity issue, it importantly helps the site exploit the existing and planned sustainable transport links that will connect it to the wider network and will ensure that the detailed planning of the site will be around walking, cycling and public transport first. The site is already well connected through the presence of Cambridge North station, the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway and its proximity to the Milton Park and Ride and the detailed planning of the site will need to exploit these existing links. Parking One of the tools available to assist with the delivery of the site within this trip budget is that of parking control through the limited provision of car parking within the NEC area. The parking policies are welcomed and there is evidence from elsewhere in Cambridge that a strong approach to parking control, coupled with a range of travel alternatives can help encourage a significant shift to more sustainable modes. However, it is recognised that due to the fragmented nature of land ownership on the site, some sites will be able to make quicker progress towards the stretching parking standards than others due to, for example, the complexities of long term leases. The trip budget approach gives enough flexibility that developers can come forward with other measures including aggressive travel planning (which could include the use of car clubs) to ensure that their proposals remain within the vehicular trip budget, however a robust monitoring framework will be required to ensure that development does not continue if the trip budget is breached. It is anticipated that due to the phased nature of parking reduction, coupled with the increasing offer of travel alternatives, aggressive travel planning measures, and a strong monitoring framework, the impact of parking reduction will be able to be well managed. It is however accepted that on a fringe site such as this, there will be the opportunity for parking to overspill into surrounding areas. If this happens and becomes a problem, areas that lie within Cambridge City could be considered for residents’ parking schemes, the restrictions of which could be enforced by Civil Parking Enforcement. However, if this happens in areas that lie in South Cambridgeshire, a residents’ parking scheme could not currently be introduced as the district is not covered by these powers. Any move towards this will need to be initiated by South Cambridgeshire District Council as there are financial implications to Civil Parking Enforcement. However given the increasing number of major new developments and fringe sites that are being developed in the district, it is an issue that South Cambridgeshire District Council may wish to explore early in the plan period. It could provide an additional tool with which to help control any potential side effects of parking restrictions within new sites, should they arise. Cambridgeshire Guided Busway It is acknowledged and understood that the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, along with Milton Road, the A14 and the railway presents a barrier to opening up the NEC site to wider communities, especially to the south. The rationale for wishing to incorporate additional crossing points of the Busway is understood and from a connectivity point of view this principle is supported. However, as identified in the supporting text of the plan, the challenges of implementing additional crossings should not be underestimated. The Busway has the status of Statutory Undertaker afforded it by the Transport and Works Act Order under which it was constructed. Any changes to the Busway corridor will need to be considered at a higher health and safety level than a highway as incidents in the area would be investigated under the jurisdiction of the Health and Safety Executive. This would involve a potentially lengthy legal process with no certainty at this stage of success. As such, a developer or other body could not unilaterally implement or design in the crossing points identified in the spatial framework as set out in this policy. Policy 15(e) should be reworded to read as: “Opportunities to introduce further crossing points should be actively explored, in particular those identified on the AAP Spatial Framework.” Early engagement with the Busway team is encouraged to identify a way forward with this.

Not at all

It is unrealistic to expect that there will be no additional traffic on the science Park and Milton Road areas! Also allowing less than half a car parking space per home is also unrealistic, and even if these were used where will these 4000 extra cars be going if not out into the local area! People will still need and use cars, especially young families wanting to leave the immediate development area! Public transport in this area is not great and is unreliable and will not help people wanting to go to extra curricular activities, visits outside the area, supermarket trips that they cannot carry on the back of a bike.. etc etc

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

Traffic plans are totally unrealistic. Residents will have cars and there will be massive extra traffic caused by the business expansion. As a business owner with two premises in the area I know that not all staff live within cycling distance and not all have convenient rail access, or are able to fit in using trains with he need to carr out school runs etc. Why is such a big development being considered without sensible investment in road infrastructure, including for private cars and commercial vehicle traffic. It is very hard to get out of the business parks on both sides of Milton Road in the evening rush-hour. With 3 times the number of people, this will be awful. I also live off Milton Road and am really worried about the level of congestion that the business and residential traffic will cause - especially when much of the road and pavements is reallocated to cyclists. The combination of cycle superhighway and narrow road-way for vehicles means that all this vehicle and cycle traffic will cause real damage and loss of amenity to the communities living along the Milton Road corridor.

Not at all

Discouraging car travel is easy. What is missing is sufficient encouragement of alternatives. Without improved public transport removing parking spaces will just cause frustration, illegal parking, or parking displaced elsewhere. I would suggest additional parking centers be provided to remove cars from the immediate residential areas. This combined with a frequent, cheap and reliable public transport provision will remove the need for regular car access, but most households will still wish to own a car.

Not at all

It is utterly disingenuous to pretend that 8,000 new homes will not increase traffic on Milton Road. Look at the failures of Orchard Park, where insufficient parking provision was meant to discourage car ownership and use, and promote usage of public transport (such as the guided bus stops, which were located on Topper Street in Orchard Park and have no buses serving them). This scheme is doomed to the same failures as it offers the same solutions. Orchard Park is now blighted by cars that have no reasonable alternative but to park on pavements, stacked tightly in when there are excessively wide pavements punctuated by trees meaning that their effective usable width is halved. A sensible approach would be to accept that the residents will inevitably own cars and plan accordingly. The assertion that no addition traffic movements will be created begs the question of how the residents will obtain groceries? Will the online shooing deliveries not be delivered by road? Will residents not drive to a supermarket for food? Half a car parking space per house simply does not reflect current or near future society. Will residents not have any visitors? Will they not own a car so they cannot visit others? I think the obvious answer is that they will necessarily own more than 0.5 cars per household and the plan inadequately reflects that reality. Car ownership in the UK is increasing, not decreasing. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8236779/Car-van-ownership-UK-exceeds-40-MILLION-time-ever.html

Mostly not

You are building homes that have residents with cars and need to access the site, so you are ensuring gridlock and parking problems. No mention of better public transport. As reported earlier larger families will have more cars but yet you do not provide the space thus ensuring problems you see on other builds were parking as tried to be curtailed. The cars will not go away so plan them in not plan them out.

Mostly not

I don't see how building thousands of parking spaces discourages car use. My family don't have a car - it's really not essential in Cambridge at all, even with a young family. So why not encourage others to do so, rather than encouraging car use in this way. 'Proximity to the A14' will be the selling point the developers use when they actually try to get people to live here, but this phrase will be mysteriously absent during the planning process.

Mostly not

We welcome the ambition to make North East Cambridge a place where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport and the street hierarchy and designs seem to support this goal. It is important that high-quality routes continue to the edge of the area (including junctions) and connect up with external cycle routes for onward journeys to maximise the number of longer trips made by cycle. However, we have concerns about the ability of the planning service to ensure consistent quality of routes and facilities across a site which encompasses several different landowners and developers. The addition of qualifiers gives tempting get-out clauses for things which must be in place to prioritise active travel (for example, ‘Where possible [cycle parking should provide] sufficient space within which to easily manoeuvre cycles of all types’ on p198 of the Draft Area Action Plan or ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’ in the Transport Evidence Base). Cycling must be safe, convenient and attractive to enable people to switch from driving. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan – measures such as an internal shuttle bus will be essential to achieve trip budgets and help those who can’t walk or cycle get around without a car. Trip budgets also rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. It is unacceptable to require additional Park & Ride capacity which will simply push additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. Rather than begin with existing Local Plan guidelines on car parking spaces and assume that private car ownership will continue to be the default for half the new households, the Area Action Plan should set realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. Spacing of vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading should be designed to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. The whole development should support every aspect of a zero-carbon lifestyle.

Mostly not

Again the ratio of jobs to homes is wrong and will bring more traffic into Cambridge.

Mostly not

My experience in everywhere I've seen limits to car parking etc is that it hasn't worked :( Mostly families need at least one car and many have two. Even people who cycle a lot around Cambridge still like to have a car for some trips during the week and weekends. It's rare to find a family without. And they then have friends that come and visit who bring cars and need to park them somewhere during the visit. Planning to provide inadequate car parking just ends up blighting the lives of those who already live around the area because the cars end up being parked in awkward places filling up all of the surrounding roads.... It is a perennial problem with appartments!! the solution - don't build them in the first place!!

Neutral

The presence of Cambridge North station will be key to the success of the whole development because without frequent, reliable public transport the environmental and community benefits will be rapidly eroded. However, the plan is not yet sufficiently robust in ensuring adequate connections with other forms of public transport, especially buses. Before the slowdown caused by the pandemic, the north-east of Cambridge was forced to rely on cars as the main reliable form of transport because the guided bus was full during peak hours and the provision of buses completely inadequate. Public transport must be built into the whole development in a comprehensive way from the outset, to allow travel not just within the area or to the city centre but further out to the numerous surrounding villages where many employees of existing businesses in this area currently live.

Mostly not

No. You need to have people living within walking or cycling distance. So you need a secondary school. If you want to ban cars, then just ban them.