5.21

Object

Representation ID: 31623

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Peter Tribble

I argue that the Primary road should be a perimeter road. Such a choice:
- doesn't break the community up
- doesn't funnel vehicles to the centre of the development
- no need for pedestrians/cyclists to cross the road to get anywhere
(specifically the school)
- provides natural barrier between housing and the airport
- no impact if/when it becomes a "rat run"

Object

Representation ID: 31767

Received: 02/10/2017

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Most contentious parts of consultations was requirement by the LP Policy for 'spine road' in development. The reason behind this may be due to AAP and about larger site's interconnectivity. This fragmentary approach to development is contextually inappropriate. This is the most rigid and constraining of requirements for site -the road is dictating the development- a tail wagging the dog scenario.

There is still a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate why this must be included, what benefit this will provide for wider transport/congestion and what alternatives there are. How will spine road address thru traffic, prevention of rat runs?

Object

Representation ID: 31797

Received: 02/10/2017

Respondent: Natural Cambridgeshire

We are concerned that the adjacent spine road could subsequently provide an entrance route to future development on safeguarded land to the west - this would require a road that would then cut across the linear park, devaluing wildlife connectivity.