I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles

Support-active and passive charging potential is supported (uture proofing car parking for electric vehicle use)

If retail parking is being required to install EV charge points, the charge rate should be chosen to be appropriate for the length of stay. 7kW equates to a little under 30 miles of charge per hour and so is likely to be insufficient to be worthwhile for stays of less than a couple of hours. For retail sites a mix of charging speed between 20kW and 75kW should be strongly encouraged or expected, depending on the projected dwell time.

(Transport) There needs to be clearer and more specific guidance regarding cycle and mobility parking with clear minimum standards.
Given the phasing out of fossil fuelled cars by 2030 and the lifespan of this Local Plan to 2041 we believe that high provision of electric car charging points should be provided. Whilst electric cars are not the answer to all transportation problems, they do have benefits and insuring infrastructure is in place will assist with their adoption.
No reference could be found to electric car charging points in public car parks or on streets. A policy is required on this as otherwise issues will arise with on street parking and charging provision.
This section will require an update following recent announcements: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59369715

The Trumpington Residents' Association argues that there should be a priority on supporting a network of recharging points, as the number of EVs increases.

There is a reference to the provision of '1 charge point per dwelling' but how will this work when not all parking spaces are immediately adjacent to the property to which they relate (page 307)?

We are concerned about the vagueness concerning the number of parking spaces. For example, there is the statement "We are therefore proposing that we move to a more design-led approach, supported by indicative standards tailored to reflect different circumstances" (page 309) but no mention of parking for visitors/deliveries, yet these become even more crucial as the number of parking spaces for residents decreases. If you do not have a car, you could be even more reliant on having your groceries delivered. Where is the insistence that developers properly manage this demand?

In response to climate change, there is a need to focus on more sustainable methods of transport.
With the government moving away from petrol and diesel vehicles, and an increase in the number of electric vehicles (EV) in and around Greater Cambridge, there is a demand for fast electric vehicle charging points in accessible locations.

In a similar manner to traditional “petrol stations”, new EV charging stations need to provide ancillary services providing comfort and welfare arrangements for those travelling. However, in a different manner to “petrol stations”, charging takes much longer, which means that you need to provide more space for vehicles to be parked up for longer while being charged, and consequently welfare support services need to be more substantial in their offering.

Our client’s proposals for development at land at Hazlewell Court, Bar Road, Lolworth (Site URN 676) would see the development of a dedicated “EV charging hub”. Located in a highly accessible location on the Bar Hill junction of the A14, close to Bar Hill and at the entrance point to the new settlement of Northstowe, the site represents a strategic opportunity to serve the neighbouring settlements, as well as support the potential employment opportunities represented by proposals at Slate Hall Farm, Bar Hill (Site URN 236).

The neighbouring site is being promoted for commercial development and our client’s proposed EV hub, in conjunction with the hotel, restaurant provision and convenience services, could further support green travel options to the site and the neighbouring settlements. Ultimately, improved access to EV charging would help the move towards a more sustainable Greater Cambridge area.

USS acknowledges the ambitions of the parking and electric vehicle policy. However, it is important there is an element of flexibility in the policy to consider site specific circumstances. USS also notes that operational parking is often required for logistic and warehousing uses and requests that this is reflected in the proposed policy.

Persimmon Homes acknowledge the government’s intentions to include the delivery of electric charging points in new developments. However, it is again important such as with policy CC/NZ that these requirements are addressed through building regulations with nationally set standards.
In addition, the viability does not consider the upgrades to the national grid that would be required as a result.

The specific levels of demand however, for EVC points needs to be supported by further evidence, as the levels of provision for employment and retail developments appear arbitrary.

We therefore iterate that such flexibility within parking standards should be reflected within the final policy for both vehicular and cycle parking.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

Policy should seek to maintain existing parking in private garages rather than permit garages to be turned into living accommodation with a consequent increase in on-street parking.
EV charging points need to be subsidised and installed across the area not just in new developments.

We support the proposals for provision of at least one EV charging point per home..

we would like to see a REDUCTION in the required total number of parking spaces per property. The S Cambs local plan currently requires 2 one of which is on the curtilage. This wastes land and encourages private cars

if developers were allowed to provide just 0.5 spaces fewer, the development would take 5% less land. This would improve financial viability, and hence provision of affordable housing. It would also allow more space for biodiversity

To enable this car clubs and safe cycling routes

parking proposals for bikes need to be bolder. Cambridge local plan currently says fewer than one cycle space per room in shared accommodation. This needs a complete re-write. Need to assume multiple bikes of different types per person, space for cycle maintenance, secure storage and storage that feels safe e.g. for women at night. Need community wide spaces for shared facilities e.g. bike trailers and e-cargobikes. Also need to use section 106 money to retrofit neighbouring communities so that they aren't left behind, e.g. Kings Hedges/ Arbury even Orchard Park not sufficient facilities for cycle storage compared to NE Cambridge.

There is an inherent tension between parking provision and encouraging usage of public transport walking and cycling. Cambridge is already a very congested city. There is an urgent need to encourage the use of public transport. This can only be achieved by improving public transport connectivity at the expense of private cars. At the same time car commuting should be discouraged. North Newnham currently has no parking controls. It provides in excess of 400 free commuter parking places all of which contribute to congestion. Parking management and control should be universal across the City.

Residents parking schemes must be extended to prevent commuter parking.

The plan should mandate secure cycle parking on all developments, to a much higher standard than currently being supplied where cycle theft is a huge problem.

I support the requirement to supply EV charge points on all new developments. The percentage of active spaces and minimum power should reflect the likely length of stay in each parking space. I support mandatory 100% at 7kW for dwellings. 20% for retail seems a reasonable compromise, but given the shorter stays a higher minimum power level would make sense to support future EV demand.

Title: Policy I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles
I would recommend that this is changed for ease of reference to ‘Parking and electric charging for cars, motorcycles, cycles and other micromobility vehicles’

The Local Plan needs to contain detailed, quantified standards for all sizes of developments, with higher standards for car-free developments, and explicit guidance for mixed-use developments where facilities (e.g. for visitor car and cycle parking and deliveries) are likely to be shared between site occupiers.


Standards on parking for micromobility vehicles should set a:
• Minimum ratio of secure cycle parking spaces per resident (not per bedroom) – ideally aiming for one-to-one in car-free developments and where possible elsewhere to ensure that lack of a secure cycle parking space is never a deterrent to taking up cycling.
• A proportion of inclusive cycle parking spaces for disabled cyclists. Inclusive cycle parking spaces are spaces that are best located for disabled people to use. Some of these spaces will also be off-gauge for tricycles and other larger disability-adapted cycles, but also some disabled cyclists use ordinary bicycles as well.
• A proportion of cycle parking for off-gauge cycles – especially necessary for families living without a car.
• Proportion of space allocated to other micromobility vehicles, including mobility scooters and e-scooters.
• Provision of secure charging facilities for micromobility vehicle batteries.
• Provision of secure storage lockers for accessories (helmets, panniers, waterproof clothing, detachable lights, etc)
• Maximum proportion of two-tier cycle parking – recognising that a person’s height and upper-body strength determines whether they can use an upper-tier rack. There should be strict requirements for two-tier cycle parking where it is permitted: the upper tier must have gas-struct lifting assistance, each space must have a welded locking loop for securing the bicycle, there must be a minimum spacing between stands, the aisle width must meet a minimum standard, and absolutely under no circumstances are developers allowed to use models of two-tier stands that have Sheffield stands on the bottom tier – they don’t function correctly and cause the upper tier to become inaccessible.
• Standards for the incline of ramps to access cycle parking – recognising that some people who cycle have restricted mobility that may make cycling or walking up a relatively steep ramp or walking up a large number of steps impossible.
• Standards for accessibility – access routes must be designed to ensure that all types of cycles, including non-standard cycles, mobility scooters, electric cycles can be easily accessed without assistance. Particular attention should be paid to occupied parking bays potentially blocking access; doorways that have to be held open to pass through; lifts that are too shallow to accommodate longer cycles; ‘airlock’ doorways that are too close together to fit longer cycles; right-angle corners that impede movement of longer cycles; narrow passageways that cannot fit wider vehicles in opposing directions.
• Standards for the security and surveillance of cycle park entrances – recognising that natural surveillance is the best deterrent to would-be thieves.

CAR PARKING

New developments must be designed to prevent parking on pavements and to ensure minimal car traffic near homes, schools and places where people gather.
Developments should be required to plan for at least 40% of short/medium-distance trips to be taken by pedal cycle or electrically-assisted pedal cycle, comparable to role-model cities in the Netherlands. Planned levels of car parking should take this into account.
The use of shared vehicles, including car clubs, should be strongly encouraged.
Standards on car and motorcycle parking should include guidance on
• The ratio of short-stay (up to 20 minutes), medium-stay (up to 4 hours) and long-stay (over 4 hours) parking provision per unit for visitors, deliveries and service providers (carers, doctors, cleaners, boiler service people, etc).
• Acceptable methods of controlling use of these bays where they are not on the public highway – recognising that in a Residents Parking Zone or where no on-street parking is available, free off-street parking is likely to be occupied by non-visitors, and potentially by commuters and shoppers.
The number of club car bays in car-free developments, including to serve residents in the surrounding area.
The proportion of bays allocated to motorcycles.


ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING POINTS

Any electric car charging infrastructure that is provided in new and existing developments must not undermine walking and cycling accessibility.

Charging infrastructure in public areas should not consume space that would have been available for pedestrians or cyclists or other space. It should also be designed so that cabling between chargers and vehicles does not constitute and hazard and does not conflict with routes people might take to walk or cycle.

Clearer requirement that shared and car pool parking takes precedence over space allocation for private parking. Private car parking space allocation to be the lowest priority on the transport space allocation hierarchy.

Policies encouraging innovative and flexible solutions to reduce car parking in appropriate locations, such as through smart parking and the provision of car clubs and shared parking should be implemented in the existing residential and commercial areas as well, not only in the new developments.
Not sure what active vs passive charging points are, a clearer description would be appreciated.

The management strategy of Communal Charge Points needs to resolve the issue of fully charged vehicles not vacating spaces once charged so point are available for others.

This policy title should include the word “cycle” and possibly “micromobility” in the title for ease of reference, e.g. “Parking and electric charging for cars, motorcycles, cycles and other micromobility vehicles”

The Local Plan needs to contain detailed, quantified standards for all sizes of developments, with higher standards for car-free developments, and explicit guidance for mixed-use developments where facilities (e.g. for visitor car and cycle parking and deliveries) are likely to be shared between site occupiers.

Micromobility vehicles include:
– Standard cycles
– Tricycles
– Tandem and triplet cycles
– Cargo cycles
– Cycles with trailers and trailer-bikes/tag-alongs
– Recumbent cycles
– Hand cycles
– Electric-assist versions of all the above
– Mobility scooters
– Push-scooters, including electrically powered

Standards on parking for micromobility vehicles should follow current best practice and be set out in the Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance, covering at least:
– Minimum ratio of secure cycle parking spaces per resident (not per bedroom) – ideally aiming for one-to-one in car-free developments and where possible elsewhere to ensure that lack of a secure cycle parking space is never a deterrent to taking up cycling.
– Proportion of cycle parking for off-gauge cycles – especially necessary for families living without a car.
– Proportion of cycle parking spaces that are inclusive. These are best located for disabled people to access and use. At least some of these spaces will also be off-gauge for tricycles and other larger disability-adapted cycles.
– Proportion of space allocated to other micromobility vehicles, including mobility scooters and e-scooters.
– Provision of secure charging facilities for micromobility vehicle batteries.
– Provision of secure storage lockers for accessories (helmets, panniers, waterproof clothing, detachable lights, etc)
– Maximum proportion of two-tier cycle parking – recognising that a person's height and upper-body strength determines whether they can use an upper-tier rack.
– Incline of ramps to access cycle parking – recognising that some people who cycle have restricted mobility that may make cycling or walking up a relatively steep ramp or walking up a large number of steps impossible. Wheeling ramps should be considered only ever as a last resort for providing cycle access between levels.
– Accessibility – access routes must be designed to ensure that all types of cycles, including non-standard cycles and mobility scooters, can be easily accessed without assistance. Particular attention should be paid to occupied parking bays potentially blocking access; doorways that have to be held open to pass through; lifts that are too shallow to accommodate longer cycles; ‘airlock’ doorways that are too close together to fit longer cycles; tight corners that impede movement of longer cycles; narrow passageways that cannot fit wider vehicles in opposing directions.
– Security and surveillance of cycle park entrances – recognising that natural surveillance is the best deterrent to would-be thieves.
– Security of cycle parking stands: tamper-proof ground-fixings and components.

Standards on car and motorcycle parking should include guidance on:
– Ratio of short-stay (up to 20 minutes), medium-stay (up to 4 hours) and long-stay (over 4 hours) parking provision per unit for visitors, deliveries and service providers (carers, doctors, cleaners, boiler servicepersons, etc).
– Acceptable methods of controlling use of these bays where they are not on the public highway – recognising that in a Residents Parking Zone or where no on-street parking is available, free off-street parking is likely to be occupied by non-visitors, such as commuters and shoppers.
– Number of club car bays in car-free developments, including to serve residents in the surrounding area.
– Proportion of bays allocated to motorcycles.

TMLC supports the provision of cycle/car parking and electric charging points within new developments.

It is not clear what is meant by communal parking areas – if these are in residential use (i.e. flats) this may be reasonable but otherwise it should be removed.

We support the principle of a policy that secures electric vehicle parking, particularly as this part of the energy network is rapidly decarbonising. The detail for electric vehicle parking at the Campus is to be developed through the joint working process with GCSP.

Paragraph 5.5, “Vehicle parking should include electric charging infrastructure (with appropriate grid reinforcement)”. Vehicle parking must include electric charging infrastructure if Government targets for electric vehicles are to be met.
There must be a clear way forward developed for grid reinforcement in the Greater Cambridge Area if sufficient power is to be available for vehicle charging points and for example domestic heating systems using air source pumps.
A minimum of 7KWatts is required for charging points. For communal points, a minimum of 20 KWatts is necessary to accommodate short term parking.
The provision of EV charging points in new developments needs to reflect emerging national policy.
The policy also needs to be mindful of Making Connections consultation and proposal for congestion charging and the provision of parking within potential charging areas.

The policy should provide some guidance as to the number of electric vehicle charging points required for student accommodation proposals.

Countryside support the principle of the proposed policy and the aspirations it seeks to achieve. It will be important that the policy wording allows sufficient flexibility to respond to changing travel habits and technologies over the course of the Plan period. It is also important that the policy allows for changes in requirements depending on the location of developments and the availability of alternative modes of travel, existing cycle provision etc. These are all key considerations in relation to the delivery of the Bourn Airfield proposals and will be used to inform the development of the reserved matters applications following the grant of outline planning permission.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the First Proposals Public Consultation for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully considered at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Cambridge is a beautiful, compact and historic city. It is also an historic seat of learning with a very high concentration of highly graded heritage assets. Much of the city is covered by Conservation Area status. The river corridor, green fingers and open spaces, with cows grazing in meadows even at the heart of the city, shape the character of the townscape and landscape.

Although a relatively flat landscape, the elevated positions to the west and south of the Cambridge afford important views across the city skyline, which is one of extensive tree cover and emerging spires. The flatter Fens landscape to the north and east provides very long-distance views of the City and the big east Anglian skies.

The surrounding rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire comprises over 100 villages, each with their own unique character and heritage. New settlements are an important feature of the district, with their own special identity and are growing rapidly.

We recognise the area faces intense pressure for growth, driven by both the economic success and the attractiveness of the area, in large part a consequence of

its rich architectural and cultural heritage. This growth must be carefully managed to ensure that the very things that contribute to its success are not harmed in the process.

It is for this reason that Historic England is keen to ensure that the emerging plan gives full consideration to the historic environment, both in the choice of site allocations and policy criteria for sites, as well as through a robust and clear suite of historic environment and other policies that seek to both protect but also enhance the historic environment.

We have reviewed the Draft Plan and consultation material with a view to providing advice on heritage matters.

As a general comment, Historic England welcomes emerging plan and work undertaken to date. We have however identified below some of the key issues to be addressed in progressing the next iteration of the Plan: This should be read in conjunction with Appendix A which provides more detailed comments on these and other more minor issues.

a) Site Assessment and the need for Heritage Impact Assessments

We are pleased to note that a degree of site assessment has already been undertaken in relation to the historic environment. These are set out in the HELAA Report, especially Appendix 4.

To date, the assessment of sites is fairly high level and brief but provides a useful starting point, in particular helping to identify immediate showstoppers. We note that many of the sites are shown as amber.

As we have discussed previously, the need for further assessment of heritage in terms of significance, impact on that significance, potential mitigation and enhancements etc will be needed for the site allocations. There is currently an insufficient evidence base in this regard. We therefore welcome your commitment to undertake Heritage Impact Assessments for site allocations. These should be prepared prior to the next draft of the Local Plan.

This further assessment, known as Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should follow the 5 step methodology set out in out in our advice note, HEAN 3 on Site Allocations in Local Plans https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/.

HIAs should be proportionate (both to the scale of the site and the assets affected). All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment

impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or inter-visibility with, a potential site.

Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.

Impacts on significance are not just based on distance or visual impacts, and assessment requires a careful judgment based on site visits and the available evidence base. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:

• Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
• Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
• Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
• Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
• Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
• Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

The HIAs should assess the suitability of each area for development and the impact on the historic environment. Should the HIA conclude that development in the area could be acceptable and the site be allocated, the findings of the HIA should inform the Local Plan policy including development criteria and a strategy diagram which expresses the development criteria in diagrammatic form.

Which sites require HIA?

Ideally all sites should have an HIA, albeit proportionate to the site and heritage sensitivities.

For existing allocations being carried forward into this Local Plan, the HIA is less about the principle of development (that has already been established through previous plan allocation) and more about exploring capacity, height, density and any heritage mitigation and enhancement opportunities so that these can then be

included in the updated policy wording.

For new allocations, the HIA will be a more holistic view and consider both the principle of development as well as the other matters identified above.

b) Policy Wording for sites

If, having completed the heritage impact assessments, it is concluded that a site is suitable for allocation, we would remind you to include appropriate policy criteria for the historic environment in the policy. Please refer to the advice we give on policy wording in the attached table.

It can be helpful to refer to an HIA in the policy wording. Concept diagrams can also be useful to include in the plan to illustrate key site considerations/ recommendations.

c) Edge of Cambridge sites

The Plan proposes carrying forward a number of partially built out allocations on the edge of the City as well as some minor extensions to these. The Plan also proposes revisiting the dwelling capacity/density for some of these sites e.g. Eddington.

Proposals for North East Cambridge are very high density and also quite tall.

The Plan also includes a very large new allocation at East Cambridge (previously released from the Green Belt and allocated in the 2006 Plan, although not in the 2018 Plan). The number of dwellings now being proposed represents a significant increase in density from the 2006 Plan.

We have some concerns regarding these densities and heights on edge of Cambridge sites. Development at very high densities/heights and the potential impact on the overall setting of this historic city. HIAs should give careful consideration to the issue of development and site capacity and height – we will be looking for evidence in this regard.

d) Historic Environment Policy

We welcome your intention to include a policy for the Historic Environment. This should cover both designated and non-designated heritage assets. Policy wording should be in line with the NPPF but we are also looking for a local flavour.

Policies should be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the area and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation.

You should also include a policy for Heritage at Risk and a policy for historic shopfronts. For further detail see Appendix A.

e) Design Policy

We welcome the proposals for a design policy on the plan. We note that this policy is also intended to address tall buildings. We are concerned that the policy might become overly long and detailed, given it is covering such a wide and important range of issues and wonder whether separating out tall buildings into a separate policy might be helpful?

f) Tall Buildings Study and Policy

Related to the above, given the growth pressures that we would anticipate Cambridge is likely to experience over the coming years, we are pleased to see that the matter of Tall buildings and the skyline will be addressed in policy.

We had understood that you were commissioning a study in relation to tall buildings and the skyline policy. Is this still proposed to inform the policy in the next draft of the Local Plan?

See our advice note HEAN 4 and the consultation draft of HEAN 4. Any policy should indicate what considerations are needed for taller buildings, where buildings may or may not be appropriate etc. and in particular consider in the impact on the historic environment.

We broadly welcome policy 60 and Appendix F of the 2018 Cambridge City Local Plan. However, we consider that this could be further supplemented to indicate which areas may or may not be suited to taller buildings. Our advice note in relation to tall buildings provides further guidance in this respect

We have been having discussions with the team preparing The North East Area Action Plan in relation to tall buildings studies and have provided a detailed advice letter in that regard. Please refer to our advice letters in relation to NEA Action Plan and tall buildings for further information on our position.

g) Other Supporting Evidence

We welcome the preparation of the HELAA although consider that further, more detailed evidence is needed in relation to heritage impact and so welcome your intention to prepare HIAs for site allocations.

We broadly welcome the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment including the baseline study of the setting of Cambridge. However, we have expressed some concerns regarding some aspects of this baseline, in particular the weighting given to some of the key characteristics and aspects of setting of Cambridge including views. Further detail is given in Appendix A.

We welcome the evidence in relation to landscape character assessment. We do however continue to suggest that it would also be helpful to commission Historic Landscape Characterisation work for inform this Plan and future growth in the area.

We welcome the production of the Sustainability Appraisal. We would comment however that since many of the site allocations are grouping together under particular policies, the different impacts for individual sites are not always drawn out in the assessment tables – this sometimes has the effect of neutralising the scoring.

Historic England – Ox Cam research work

Historic England has commissioned consultants to undertake some work looking at development in the OxCam Arc. ‘Measuring Impact: Managing Change’ looks at the question, ‘How should the form of growth in the Oxford-Cambridge arc positively respond to the Historic Environment’. This research is due to report in the next few months and we hope to be able to share this with you at that time as it may provide useful evidence to inform your Local Plan work.

Other comments

In preparation of the forthcoming Greater Cambridge Local Plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, archaeologists and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues. Where there are various options proposed for a settlement, identification of heritage issues for a particular

allocation does not automatically correspond to the support for inclusion of the alternative sites, given we have not been able to assess all of the sites.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

We trust that these comments are helpful to you in developing the Local Plan. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We suggest it might be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss our comments and, in particular, heritage impact assessments and policy wording for site allocations.
Please feel free to suggest some dates.

I have asked Caldecote Parish Councillors to comment upon the emerging Local Plan.
There are no significant objections not the proposed sites.
Comments included were:
• Installation of charging points
• Bicycle lane and green walkways
• Adequate community facilities
• Access to mental health care
• Limited rural village development
• Small commercial/retail premises in rural communities
• Communication infrastructure (Fibre)
• Water consumption and the use of grey water
• Green space and more diversity
• Farming community to consulted.

This is a summary of comments received.

) Electric vehicle charging points There is no mention of supply of charging points for existing residents, particularly those whose homes have no parking space. This appears to be a serious omission.
(P309) Policy I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles. Why is this policy needed states: “The Greater Cambridge Partnership are also preparing an Integrated Parking Strategy looking at the management of on- and off-street car parking as part of wider ambitions for achieving modal shift away from the private car. As part of place-making we need to make places where people want to move around by walking and cycling, so they are not car dominated, and where people access their destinations by public transport.” Whilst the core policy is entirely reasonable, it is another example of where consideration of the needs of the clinically vulnerable appear to be an afterthought. For many with respiratory and compromised immune systems, public transport is potentially dangerous and not advisable. This policy has potential to exclude their participation in aspects of society.

All main parking sites (old & new, P&R, supermarkets, workplaces etc) to have several charging points.