To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out
in the Waterbeach New Town SPD. The absence of concrete measures for limiting traffic proliferation on Station Road, and providing Station Road residents with direct, safe access to the relocated station severely impacts our health, safety and way of life. My concerns are explained in detail in the attached.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and
support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a
development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport
(cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of
delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the
existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the
development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow
and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the
Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little
Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on
the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel
welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left
behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing
village.

Particularly, I am concerned that without expanding capacity on the A10, or creating a bypass. Station Road will degrade from a 'rat run' to 'arterial route'. I feel very strongly that this must be avoided to retain the liveability of the historic core of the original village. To secure this, on-street parking should be retained
and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure. See attached document for details.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see
to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the
existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section
needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach
railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to
a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs
amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East
of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the
gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the
East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of
the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the
dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a
poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the
A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling
infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is
incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling
infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL
CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and
public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in
the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and
Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as
there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An
additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling
infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such
as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development
will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be
segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town.
Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car
use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and
directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of
existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing
entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park
close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the
SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose
this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car
park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than
walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to
pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre
(within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine
need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway
station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of
residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody
Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in
Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area
within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and
children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It
is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to
school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than
walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to
drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody
Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle.
Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no
additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels
through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through
the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing
close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which
leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who
regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and
large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the
station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody
Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that
from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will
help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to
the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody
Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will
use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated
train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and
would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in
the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New
Town road network and not the village transport network". It is
unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the
new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary
on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only
the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections
across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are
agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the
development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same
importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We
foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations
unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide
firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable
modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too
vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel
should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate
access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable
existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without
having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do
not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from
the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift
from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly
modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the
development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport
and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway
improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off
line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the
corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to
mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are
identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift,
and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures
should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the
following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the
local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking
the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the
car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with
disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want
to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure
that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday
destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding,
such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for
any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station
Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path
leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site,
rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the
existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict
between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle
Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2
and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach
village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least
before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to
mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122
is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to
the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a
route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site
without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation
for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by
walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves
a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach
New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model
share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring,
review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this
target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach
Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called
this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the
needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf
on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also
attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design
principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours,
want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and
walking used for all everyday journeys.

SUMMARY

I support the proposed New Town and the SCDC vision to have a development
with high levels of cycling and walking. However, the existing SPD will not
deliver such a development, instead prioritising the use of motorised
vehicles to the detriment of existing and New Town residents.
I support the alternative vision put forward by Waterbeach Cycling Campain
for a plan that:
1) Prioritises walking and cycling over driving
2) Keeps schools and pre-schools away from busy roads
3) Encourages the routing of traffic from the existing village to the New
Town along the A10 rather than through the village.