Response to SPD consultation
First of all I am concerned about the chronology applied in producing the SPD for SS5 now SS6 as it would appear that the SPD was cleared for consultation even before the adoption of the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear if the appropriate policies were applied to the SPD and if they were how Council could possibly be certain that they would stand.
Also have the concerns of Scrutiny Committee and decisions by 5th Sept Cabinet been applied to the SDP prior to consultation as identified in the Minutes of the latter.
If the answer is no and I have no knowledge of them then surely the consultation must be halted for consultees to be updated and then rescheduled.
Transport
I am also concerned about the whole approach to transport and movement within the New Town and between there and the village of Waterbeach. There appears to be a mismatch between the ambition of the SPD to prioritise pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic over that of the car. And the proposed Transport Plan in the document.
What the SPD actually delivers is the opposite, as cars are fast tracked to the centres and across the town with cycles sent to the perimeter.
In order to put people first and encourage people to change current habits pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic must always have right of way and the quickest route from a to b. Cars on the other hand should be given a circuitous route via an outer ring road. If we are brave enough to do this then we may truly change habits.
Schools, rail station shopping centre and Waterbeach Village must have restricted car access in favour of pedestrian, cycle and mobility traffic. Cycle and mobility parking must be abundant and close to facilities. And must be provided early in the development process.
I would broadly support the views of the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign on the SPD and recommend a serious perusal of their document at:-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
I would go as far as to say that the early introduction of Intra and inter town cycle routes together with complimentary Bus and Train services is more important than upgrading the A10 and will deliver significant Modal Shift.
Number, Density and Height of Dwellings
I am particularly concerned about the number of dwellings the SPD seems to be supporting and that the numbers are developer led rather than portrayed as a district requirement supported by the SS5 policies.
For example, the Plan Policy says 8000 to 9000 dwellings, yet the SPD appears to be supporting the development for 11000 dwellings. This will only be achieved by building high and close, blighting the fen-scape and reducing the amount of green space within the town.
11000 dwellings will require a dwellings per hectare ratio of 51. When we consider that Bovis at Bannold drove went for 38 and how little green open space they provide what will be the effect of 51?
As with M People "the only way is up" and the SPD dutifully obliges. It says the final number will be design led but points us in an upward direction with the spatial map on page 69, Fig 3, prompting the developers up to 8 storeys high. The plan for Ely Station area in East Cambs is to max out at 4 storeys and is very similar landscape to Waterbeach.
Does Waterbeach and the Fen Edge need this?

It is not clear that this approach is supported by the Local Plan policies SS5 as it clearly states in SC-MM058 of Major Mods now SS6 that it will draw on the traditions of other Fen Edge Market Towns. Not aware that any of those have 8 story buildings.
We can deliver the target figure of 8000 to 9000 at 40 DPH and build a town that befits the Fen and complies with SS5 policy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eA0eF_SIyRstK7pcmxhZwuWFuXTKkG/view
Relationship to existing village
The original concept of the Local Plan was for green space between the existing Village and the New Town. This was dropped when the Bannolds were built on. Why, because the SPD is developer led and not a District requirement and they value future customers over the needs of existing residents.
The Bannold inspector said in his judgment that the green space requirement could be accommodated beyond Capper Rd.
Protecting the identity and character of Waterbeach as a Village close to the New Town is included in 4 SS5 Major Modification Policies: MM058, MM065, MM075, MM076 which are absorbed into SS6 of the adopted Local plan it is also part of the SPD Vision. Close is defined as being a close distance away or apart. Cleary not applied in the SPD.
The only thing stopping these policies protecting the identity of Waterbeach Village is the lack of ambition and resolve of South Cambs District Council. This requirement should be absorbed by the SPD and the SPD should represent the aspirations South Cambs District and the people who live here.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns in particular your rationale should you continue to ignore the views of Waterbeach.