Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 53915
Received: 04/10/2020
Respondent: Mr Jon Pavey
The Policy places a limit on the type/scale of potential leisure facilities (and specifically argues against the likes of cinema, bowling facilities and the like) on the grounds that these would turn NEC into a destination locality and consequently attract high volumes of car based travel from beyond the local area.
Also - and quite rightly - care is being taken to ensure the commercial viability of existing centres, from Milton to Cambridge City, are not undermined.
These are reasonable concerns but given the number of new people (potential consumers) arriving in the area and the low-car design philosophy, this approach risks undermining the intended vibrant community that is a characterful, lively, mixed-use new district where all can live and work.
1) There will be 18,000 people living in NEC, some employed in the 35,000 jobs. But many employed on site will commute from elsewhere (as now). There is thus a large pool of people on the NEC site who could engage in leisure activities in NEC. And this would be supplemented by residents and workers in the area immediately surrounding.
2) The low-car use strategy depends on good public transport and active travel facilities. The more customers the public transport has, the better chance it will be commercially viable and able to deliver the services necessary - including through the evening when some workers struggle with public transport availability. In these terms the NEC being a destination is not a bad outcome.
3) With NEC at the end of the Guided Busway, and with Cambridge North Station, there is already infrastructure for good non-car access to the site. A CAM stop would further enhance this. Thus the arguments about creating additional car journeys may be given too much credence.
4) On top of the new 18,000 people living and additional 20,000 workers in NEC, there will be an influx of people to Northstowe and Waterbeach further boosting the number of new leisure consumers. All these could access the NEC site by active travel or existing public transport infrastructure.
5) With the proposed density and building massing, NEC will feel like a town, not a suburb. To create a positive vibrant atmosphere requires good availability of a range of leisure facilities. This includes having somewhere appealing for young adults to spend time and equally, though of a different character, for senior citizens. And all ages and outlooks in between (as well as catering for children's needs).
6) There is a danger that the Policy as stated will create a dormitory town, that people travel from for their entertainment - so creating journeys - but also leaving quite streets, which perhaps, especially after dark could become threatening and result in residents shutting themselves indoors. Where then the vibrant community?
The Policy places a limit on the type/scale of potential leisure facilities (and specifically argues against the likes of cinema, bowling facilities and the like) on the grounds that these would turn NEC into a destination locality and consequently attract high volumes of car based travel from beyond the local area.
Also - and quite rightly - care is being taken to ensure the commercial viability of existing centres, from Milton to Cambridge City, are not undermined.
These are reasonable concerns but given the number of new people (potential consumers) arriving in the area and the low-car design philosophy, this approach risks undermining the intended vibrant community that is a characterful, lively, mixed-use new district where all can live and work.
1) There will be 18,000 people living in NEC, some employed in the 35,000 jobs. But many employed on site will commute from elsewhere (as now). There is thus a large pool of people on the NEC site who could engage in leisure activities in NEC. And this would be supplemented by residents and workers in the area immediately surrounding.
2) The low-car use strategy depends on good public transport and active travel facilities. The more customers the public transport has, the better chance it will be commercially viable and able to deliver the services necessary - including through the evening when some workers struggle with public transport availability. In these terms the NEC being a destination is not a bad outcome.
3) With NEC at the end of the Guided Busway, and with Cambridge North Station, there is already infrastructure for good non-car access to the site. A CAM stop would further enhance this. Thus the arguments about creating additional car journeys may be given too much credence.
4) On top of the new 18,000 people living and additional 20,000 workers in NEC, there will be an influx of people to Northstowe and Waterbeach further boosting the number of new leisure consumers. All these could access the NEC site by active travel or existing public transport infrastructure.
5) With the proposed density and building massing, NEC will feel like a town, not a suburb. To create a positive vibrant atmosphere requires good availability of a range of leisure facilities. This includes having somewhere appealing for young adults to spend time and equally, though of a different character, for senior citizens. And all ages and outlooks in between (as well as catering for children's needs).
6) There is a danger that the Policy as stated will create a dormitory town, that people travel from for their entertainment - so creating journeys - but also leaving quite streets, which perhaps, especially after dark could become threatening and result in residents shutting themselves indoors. Where then the vibrant community?