We support this proposed policy, particularly that developers should be required to provide extensive and
inclusive cycle parking at homes, destinations, and travel hubs. This provision should meet the Green Line criterion of contributing a demonstrable reduction in both traffic and emissions. We would strongly support a Workplace Parking Levy to be introduced across Greater Cambridge. This would act as a further disincentive to all but essential car ownership and vehicle movements and provide a source of funding to support eco-travel infrastructure.
Car parking, while necessary, should be designed on a ‘need to have’ rather than a ‘want to have’ basis. As
mentioned above, residents’ parking permit costs should be a disincentive to car ownership. Possible alternative pricing for electric vehicles could be explored. Policies must be fair to all sections of society, including meeting the needs of individuals with a genuine need for access to a car.
Car Clubs are a positive innovation. Lift sharing should be enabled on a Greater Cambridge-wide basis possibly using a car sharing system such as Liftshare. Developers can and should be responsible for making sure that Liftshare or similar apps are available to new residents.
We welcome the proposal for electrical charging points but call for greater ambition. We note that according
to Department of Transport Statistics [1], the number of charging points per 100,000 population is 44.8 in
Cambridge and only 28.0 in South Cambridgeshire. By contrast, the rate in Oxford is 69.3, in Bedford 58.4,
and North Devon 52: clearly there is room for improvement.
Rapid charging is essential to the rapid uptake of EV’s. The minimum specification for EV charging points as set out in the First Proposals is unambitious and will quickly become insufficient. New developments should
be specified to have a minimum of 11kW with smart loading and easy access to 3 phase charging. This will
meet the expected rise in the consumption of electricity by households (approx. 50%) in the near future and mean the increased capacity of inverters will not act as an infrastructure deficit, which would be very costly to
redress. This level of provision will require an increase in the capacity of local substations by about 50%. In 2017 the Netherlands 50% of public charging was rapid charging, compared to about 5% in the UK.
If Cambridge truly aspires to being a world-leading city it should be matching the Netherlands in the provision
of this infrastructure, in which investment in local EV charging points is fundamentally different to the UK.
The Netherlands had in 2017 a highly effective EV on request policy, under the ‘Green Deal’. the spending of
£2.2m in the UK is compared to approx. £28m in the Netherlands. The majority of UK spending is directed at
inter-city infra-structure. The GP Cambridge feel that if Cambridge is to meet best practice this difference
should be redressed both through policy and through planning criteria.
[1] Electric vehicle charging device statistics: October 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electric-vehicle-charging-device-statistics-october-2021