North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019
Representation ID: 33416
Respondent: Ms Rosamund Humphrey
Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.
I have answered a subsection of the questions in the NECAAP in support of the following overall proposal:
I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut permanently.
There is also the issue of public safety to cyclists and pedestrians using the new cycle link from Newmarket Road to North Cambridge station, there is a considerable increase in cyclist using Fen Road to access Moss Bank to the new station, this is a very dangerous road and the new bridge to link to Moss Bank where cyclist an pedestrians have to cross Fen Road will increase that DANGER CONSIDERLY.
I have seen a number of accidents and near misses to cyclist using the Fen Road, closing the crossing will ensure that traffic along that stretch of Fen Road will be reduced by over 90% making it a very safe environment for everyone.
This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development and onto Milton Road and the A14.
All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.
Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.
This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.
Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.
This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.
Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."
Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.
Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.
Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.
Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.
Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.
Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.
Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).
Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.
Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.
Q75, 76: SUPPORT
Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.