Question 25: As set out in this chapter there are a range of public transport, cycling and walking schemes planned which will improve access to the North East Cambridge area. What other measures shoul

the schemes outlined are appropriate with a priority order of walking, cycling, bus, train. Cars should not be a real consideration (apart from emergency service access and disability access) in the design.

1. Junction of Milton Road and Cowley Road.
This junction needs major improvement. I cycle through here 10x per week. It is hard for cyclists to safely negotiate from/to Milton Road to/from Cowley Road. Sending traffic from Cambridge North Station up Cowley Road where it has to compete with traffic from the Innovation Centre also leads to significant, and unnecessary congestion and delays particularly between 4pm and 6pm in the evening. We need a 4-way crossing or roundabout here combined with the proposed green bridge to provide a safe route for cyclists.

The proposed Green Bridge should give good access to the Innovation Centre, Jane Costen Bridge and the housing and businesses proposed for the NE corner of the site. I believe most cyclists and pedestrians would access these rather than Cambridge North Station.

2. Proposed enhanced cycle and pedestrian way through the Science Park.
The proposed enhanced pedestrian and cycling corridor between Cambridge North and CRC is mis-named. The busway cycle route works well for this and the crossing of Milton Road isn't too bad. See later comment on this. I believe most cyclists and pedestrians going from CRC to Cambridge North would continue to use the busway path which is of high quality. There is a need for an enhanced pedestrian and cycling corridor between CRC and the Innovation & Business Parks and the proposed housing and businesses, and the
proposed route makes sense. But it must be of as high quality as the busway route, with as few junctions to negotiate as possible.

3. Busway - Milton Road crossing.
As stated above, this crossing isn't too bad. My wife uses it about 8x per week and is happy. The wait for cyclists to cross Milton Road is a little long, but other than that this isn't too bad. This is a good route from CRC to Cambridge North.

4. Green space and green corridors.
One of the things that makes Cambridge special is its green corridors and spaces, and green space should be given high priority on this site. It is also important that the barrier formed by the A14 is minimised, so green corridors should link with the Jane Costen Bridge and new crossings for e.g. a green corridor to Waterbeach.

5. Light industrial space.
I was really disappointed that the light industrial units shown on the original Orchard Park plans were never built. All that was built were 2 hotels and I suspect the remaining space will become houses. I'm really keen to see this included, not least because I work for a small business that is looking for industrial space within 3 miles of Cambridge. This is not easy to find. Places like St John's Innovation Centre are fully occupied by small, thriving companies, and more space near the centre of Cambridge is needed. I'm also very keen to see developments where people can work close to where they live.

6. Station area.
This works well. It would be useful to have a few more very short stay spaces (15 minutes). The development should strive to avoid creating bottle necks between Milton Road the Station Area and in particular avoiding the poor design of the approach to Cambridge Central Station.

1. Junction of Milton Road and Cowley Road.
This junction needs major improvement. I cycle through here 10x per week. It is hard for cyclists to safely negotiate from/to Milton Road to/from Cowley Road. Sending traffic from Cambridge North Station up Cowley Road where it has to compete with traffic from the Innovation Centre also leads to significant, and unnecessary congestion and delays particularly between 4pm and 6pm in the evening. We need a 4-way crossing or roundabout here combined with the proposed green bridge to provide a safe route for cyclists.

The proposed Green Bridge should give good access to the Innovation Centre, Jane Costen Bridge and the housing and businesses proposed for the NE corner of the site. I believe most cyclists and pedestrians would access these rather than Cambridge North Station.

2. Proposed enhanced cycle and pedestrian way through the Science Park.
The proposed enhanced pedestrian and cycling corridor between Cambridge North and CRC is mis-named. The busway cycle route works well for this and the crossing of Milton Road isn't too bad. See later comment on this. I believe most cyclists and pedestrians going from CRC to Cambridge North would continue to use the busway path which is of high quality. There is a need for an enhanced pedestrian and cycling corridor between CRC and the Innovation & Business Parks and the proposed housing and businesses, and the
proposed route makes sense. But it must be of as high quality as the busway route, with as few junctions to negotiate as possible.

3. Busway - Milton Road crossing.
As stated above, this crossing isn't too bad. My wife uses it about 8x per week and is happy. The wait for cyclists to cross Milton Road is a little long, but other than that this isn't too bad. This is a good route from CRC to Cambridge North.

4. Green space and green corridors.
One of the things that makes Cambridge special is its green corridors and spaces, and green space should be given high priority on this site. It is also important that the barrier formed by the A14 is minimised, so green corridors should link with the Jane Costen Bridge and new crossings for e.g. a green corridor to Waterbeach.

5. Light industrial space.
I was really disappointed that the light industrial units shown on the original Orchard Park plans were never built. All that was built were 2 hotels and I suspect the remaining space will become houses. I'm really keen to see this included, not least because I work for a small business that is looking for industrial space within 3 miles of Cambridge. This is not easy to find. Places like St John's Innovation Centre are fully occupied by small, thriving companies, and more space near the centre of Cambridge is needed. I'm also very keen to see developments where people can work close to where they live.

6. Station area.
This works well. It would be useful to have a few more very short stay spaces (15 minutes). The development should strive to avoid creating bottle necks between Milton Road the Station Area and in particular avoiding the poor design of the approach to Cambridge Central Station.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

I work for [redacted] in an office at St John's Innovation Centre in Cowley Road. I live in [redacted South Cambridgeshire Village]. Most days I use my car to commute into work. Occasionally I use the bus which means for me a 1/2 hour walk from home to the guided bus and a further 10 minutes from the Science Park stop each way plus a bus fare (day rider plus) of £7.00. If you seriously wish me, and people like me to stop using our cars then you have to reverse policy of the last few decades, invest seriously in improving the public transport network serving the rural hinterland surrounding Cambridge and subsidising costs so that it becomes far better value for money.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

The current necessity for a level crossing is very limiting to the potential use of Cambridge north station, and has meant a disappointlngly low number of trains currently stops there. New road access via Cowley Road without a level crossing would massively improve the potential of Cambridge north by allowing more trains to stop there, as well as reducing traffic along the river/Fen Road, so improving the river space for recreation.

(1) A walking/cycling bridge alongside the A14 bridge to connect Horningsea and Cambridge. (2) Closure of the Fen Road level crossing and creation of multiple, safe, grade-separated walking/cycling routes across the railway.

More buses at peak times from villages to the science/ business parks are needed- currently there's no viable alternative to get to and from work at the right times from Waterbeach than to drive or cycle (but for many people the distance is too far to cycle and dark at night).

Keeping cycle routes protected from vehicles is still very much a high priority

Improving bus links to Cambridge North station from across the city and from local villages e.g Milton, Histon is really important. Pedestrian and cycle links east-west across Milton Road and north-south from Cowley Road to Nuffield Road are essential. I think Nuffield Road should open out onto Milton Road with a cycle-permeable barrier near the entrance to Discovery Way and the Fen Road level crossing should be closed with a new road, cycle and pedestrian bridge across the railway.

Signage and integration between different modes of transport (including high-quality cycle parking at transport hubs) is also essential.

Consider some form of free taxi, perhaps small electric vehicles, providing access for visitors who cannot cycle or walk significant distances.

The transport evidence work is exploring what other measures could contribute to making the area more accessible by non-car modes.

Improve local bus services

I want to comment on the lack of any mention of schools for the new housing, especially for secondary schools.

The need for secondary school places.

The County Council's own school planning methodology anticipates the need for 18-15 secondary school places for each 100 homes built. The proposed development is for around 5000 homes, implying a new need for 900-1250 secondary school places.

Can this demand be met from elsewhere?

No: there is no spare capacity elsewhere in the city. The Local Education Authority has detailed planning projections for school places, which (before the NEC plan) anticipates a serious shortage of secondary school places. That led them to ask all existing secondary schools to expand, and in particular to invest £10m in a new build at Chesterton Community College, to add two new forms of entry. Yet the LEA's figures still show a serious shortfall.

Adding the demand for another 1000 new places will blow the current plans out of the water. They clearly justify a new school. If a new school is not part of the NEC plans, then the Plan should articulate clearly, in black and white where those 1000 children will go to school.

Travel to school

If the Plan advocates that they should go to school somewhere else, it should say where -- and how they will get there. There is much in the Plan about walkability, sutainability, and the existing stress on the Milton Road corridor. How are these priorities to be reconciled with 1000 children being bussed across the city to schools elsewhere? (Even if those schools existed, which they do not.)

A sense of place, of identity

The Plan is admirably ambitious about developing a district with a strong sense of identity and of place. Schools are at the heart of their communities; a community without a school has lost part of its heart.

All of these comments apply equally to primary school places, although I am less familiar with the specifics.

It is remarkable that such a generally-visionary Plan makes no mention of schools -- indeed the word "school" barely appears in the document. Let's fix it.

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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

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.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

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.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

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.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

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.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

I have tried to find how to make a comment about the Northern Fringe consultation to no avail, in the end I have given up and am sending this email.
I found that there is very little information about what is planned and how it is going to look and the people at Brown's Field certainly couldn't tell me anything for certain which makes an awful consultation process. However, I would like to make the following points.

* Do we really need a large town stuck between the A14, Milton Road and Cambridge North? I hear affordable, flats, high storey, working in the same place as living. It just sounds like developer talk and how to get the maximum amount of people into a space for the least money.
* Who will live there? Will the places be affordable to shop staff and cleaners or will they only be affordable to software engineers at the Science Park?
* I was told buildings would be 5 stories high. Isn't this one of the problems with the area around Cambridge Main station. Too many people shoved together leads to too much noise, short term lets, no feeling of place?
* it is very close to the A14 so bound to have lots of pollution, would you like your child to grow up there breathing toxic air?
* ...and noise?
* If people didn't use cars, there would be far more deliveries and hence an increase in larger delivery vans with nowhere unable to park and left on the street when they make deliveries.
* The main exit for all these people would be Milton Road, think what a huge impact that would have, instant congestion.
* there is a distinct lack of buses in Cambridge especially on Milton Road so if destinations were not on the railway network how do they get there?
* Will the Metro be there?
* Cycle paths along Milton Road are being upgraded but will they be suitable for thousands more people? How would you ensure there was coherent cycling in all directions that is safe, wide and well lit?
* The area will need a good community centre (Eddington is a good example) and plenty of open space or people feel trapped and unhealthy.
* For a community to work there has to be a base resident population. For a family of three, one member of the family could work at the Science Park, another could work in Comberton or Chatteris and where would the nearest secondary school be? and how would that person get to Chatteris?
* I suggest you plan the roads well with wide cycle lanes, plenty of walking space with cars and lorries only allowed along the periphery, exceptions being for the disabled BEFORE any bricks are lain and discuss it with the developers. That mistake has been made the main station and already at Cambridge North when the planners built the lovely cycle paths and the developers designed a building that went straight through them.
* The people at the talk were really pleased to say it would be low carbon and there wouldn't be room for parking. Sounds great but you haven't achieved that anywhere else so what makes this place different? I do support the view of fewer cars but I am not sure others do.
Interestingly when I went to Brown's Field to see the stands - I wouldn't call it plans as there were none - I had been asked pick up some leaflets because very few people in the area around the proposed site knew anything about it. The box was very heavy. The officer said to me 'bring your car round and I will put them in the boot'. This off the cuff statement said it all and showed he had no idea of how others got around except by car. I didn't bring a car, I rarely go anywhere by car preferring to walk or bike if possible. But here was an officer who was intent on a car free area but obviously never went anywhere without his car. Sounded like one rule for him and another for everyone else, says it all. Please lead by example.

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 for much longer, and possibly permanently.

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.

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.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

My comments are in line with many other very concerned local residents:

I thoroughly support the development of social housing and affordable housing for local families and hope that the majority of housing will be for these people.

The Proposed Development will be Very Big - The population will be similar to that of Ely so it is a lot bigger than, say, Orchard Park. It is also planned to include high rise development and no limit has yet been put as to how high this will be.

Traffic Congestion - The top of Milton Road sometimes hits gridlock as it is, so the extra traffic does not bear thinking about. The planners have many worthy ideas to minimise car use on the development, but these are unproven. I am concerned about vehicle access to this site - there should be vehicle access from the A14 junction to take pressure off the Cowley Road and Fen Road access.

How does this development fit in with the Mayor's plan and the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study?

No Mention of CAM Metro - One year ago the mayor's consultants published indicative maps showing their proposed underground metro linking with Cambridge North/Science Park. How will this fit in with the new development?

Facilities - If insufficient facilities are developed there will be an impact locally. It has already been decided not to build a secondary school and to absorb the new pupils into existing schools. With such a large development, a new secondary school will be needed.

The Edges of the Development - The development borders on to disadvantaged parts of the city and it is not clear that these areas will be upgraded to deal with the new demands.

Developers and Implementation - We have seen how the Central Rail Station area has been developed and changed drastically from the original plans. Brookgate are the same developers for this new site. We don't want a duplicate of the CB1 area and the broken promises they were given.

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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

I am pleased to see that you have decided to stop individual and uncoordinated developments and bring all these planning applications under one action plan. This will ensure that the city grows in line with required services enabling the functioning of the city long term. One of the most important areas that has to be considered with the whole city and adjacent areas in mind is obviously transport and mobility.

It is understandable that this consultation is offering a top-level perspective, which is well stated in: "The principle of regeneration is established in the adopted local plans. The nature, quantity and balance of the development still requires consideration hence the action plan. This AAP will be a statutory development plan, with equivalent status to a local plan"

I do agree with the name change of the plan as it takes out the word "fringe" and brings it in line with a vision of an inclusive place that is part of Cambridge as a whole. This vision should also inform the details of planning of this development and its impact on Cambridge and surroundings.

Issue: Non Car Access:

Question 25: As set out in this chapter there are a range of public transport, cycling and walking schemes planned which will improve access to the North East Cambridge area. What other measures should be explored to improve access to this area?

Looking at the executive summary of the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study: Preliminary Strategic Outline Business Case January 2018; the impression is that the best solution providing for the required capacity is expansion of A10 to a full dual carriage way:

"A key finding is that while the mode-shift options without highway improvements provide additional travel capacity and have significant benefits, they do not substantially address the congestion and traffic displacement issues identified. Options with highway improvements are more effective in addressing these issues...... The greatest level of benefit was generated by the full upgrading of the A10 from Ely to Cambridge, which generated benefits at present value of some £760m over the lifetime of the scheme, at a BCR of 2.8 to 1"

The cost of this development is estimated to be £510m delivering 1.5x vale over its lifetime. Given that in parallel with the A10 there are the Cambridge Ely rail tracks, why was not given any considerations in this study for expanding the rail network and creating high enough capacity to have trains running between Ely and Cambridge with two or three key stops with intervals as short as 10min or less. It is understandable that expansion of the railways may require expansion of stations in towns along the route as well as further expanding of the Cambridge stations. Has there been any work on estimating the cost and the value over lifetime of increased rail use?

In the "conclusions" of the executive summary the second stated policy is: "Provide significantly lower levels of car parking than has traditionally been provided, particularly at employment locations". This is in direct contrast with the findings that expansion of A10 to a dual carriage way will have the highest benefits. Cars passing through the dual carriage way will require parking spaces at their destinations. What are the provisions made to address this contradiction? If there is a study of rail expansion how does it compere with the A10 expansion plan? Would expanding the rail network reduce the carbon footprint of travel considerably enough in comparison with A10 as dual carriage way?

Issue: Car usage in North East Cambridge
Question 26: Do you agree that the AAP should be seeking a very low share of journeys to be made by car compared to other more sustainable means like walking, cycling and public transport to and from, and within the area?

In principle I do agree with this idea. However, I am not confident that the current approaches will be successful in achieving this, particularly resolving issues of traffic in Cambridge and surroundings at peak times and during weekends when people head into Cambridge for shopping.

Question 27: Do you have any comments on the highway 'trip budget' approach, and how we can reduce the need for people to travel to and within the area by car?
In principle this is a good idea; however, in practice limiting the number of car parking places will not behave linearly in accordance with people's behaviour. In order to reduce car trips ideally a person travelling in and out of this area should arrive and leave with public transport. One of the main issues with public transport in Cambridge is long waiting time for buses. If bus networks are going to be the dominant mode of public transport for connecting this area with other parts
of Cambridge, there is a need for frequent and timely connections to enable seamless travel for the user.

Issue: Car Parking

Question 28: Do you agree that car parking associated with new developments should be low, and we should take the opportunity to reduce car parking in existing developments (alongside the other measures to improve access by means other than the car)?

See question 27 as this falls under 'trip budget' plan.

Issue: Cycle Parking

Question 29: Do you agree that we should require high levels of cycle parking from new developments?

In principle yes, however this highly depends on the design and capacity of these cycle parking facilities. To be attractive they need to be at least covered, secure and planned at a capacity so that they can absorb future increase in cycle parking. (We should not get into a situation as existed for decades in front of Cambridge train station).

Question 30: Should we look at innovative solutions to high volume cycle storage both within private development as well as in public areas?

Yes, however, please bear in mind that the current cycle parking solution with two racks on top of each other is not friendly to women and older people. An upper rack with a bicycle is often too heavy for a person who is not a regular gym goer and weight lifter. They also often are defect, as the mechanics are not of high enough quality, which makes them unusable.

Question 31: What additional factors should we also be considering to encourage cycling use (e.g. requiring new office buildings to include secure cycle parking, shower facilities and lockers)?

Indeed, other developments such as on the biomedical campus have done that and it is usually motivating people to use their bikes more often.

Issue: Innovative approaches to Movement

Question 32: How do we design and plan for a place that makes the best use of current technologies and is also future proofed to respond to changing technologies over time?

I would phrase this question differently and put humans at the centre of the question: How do we design and plan for a place that maximises the benefits of public infrastructure for multiple generations by harnessing adaptive future proof technologies?

Technology centric projects that are focused on finding the latest gadgetry are often a failure simply because the system change required to help humans adapt to new process required for those technologies was not taken into consideration. Among other issues, this leads to resistance and lack of use and therefore failure of such projects. Instead of a technology push approach to this question using a human centred design process will enable you to identify and procure best in class technologies that are able to perform the required task with built in system
change measures in their features and requirements.

Issue: Linking the Station to the Science Park

Question 33: what sort of innovative measures could be used to improve links between the Cambridge North Station and destinations like the Science Park?

For destinations that are in the immediate vicinity of the NEC area, using advanced
technologies such as driverless minibuses that run frequently would be useful. Initially they can be used in settings similar to the guided busway to reduce risk of collisions. As the technology matures and relevant safety standards are developed free moving minibuses would become possible. Also, simpler solutions such as offering free/low cost electric scooters and bikes that can be docked within in the area will bring quick wins.

Other observations:

In the consultation document you highlight the transport issue as a main bottleneck and state: "It suggests that a more residential-led development mix for the site which reduces external trips would provide better transport outcomes. Therefore, plans for the area will need to seek to minimise car use to the site, maximise the take-up of non-car modes including walking, cycling, bus and rail use, and promote land uses that encourage trips to be retained on-site where possible"

My main concern with this view is that in the form it is expressed it sounds rather simplistic and is not taking into account past experience Cambridge had with residential developments.

* One example is Orchard Park which is close to the Science park and initially it was
hoped that it will contain a lively centre with shops and amenities that would attract
people enough to reduce trips into town. Unfortunately, this has not turned viable and in the past year or so the shops and open area has been converted into homes, resulting into a large area of residential buildings that is wholly dependent on outside amenities. This will certainly increase trips to and from the development.

* Existence of a few shops alone will not necessarily keep people in the area that their houses are. The sense of belonging is what keeps people in a specific area and there is no provision for such considerations in your plans for NEC.
o I appreciate the section on "Place Making" however, as the plan is not detailed at
this stage it is not clear how this is going to be implemented

* My understanding is that it is hoped that the majority of people that would be living in this new development are also working in the science and business parks in the area. Has there been enough research carried out to understand the mix of people who live already in the area and their distance from where they work? Would they move to be closer to their work place if they would no longer work in the area? A good and contained example for this type of research work to be carried out would be Orchard park.

* In the action plan there is no provision for working with communities and individuals to instil behaviour change with respect to transport use

Has analysis been done of how to change peoples' habits and behaviour regarding travel to town for recreation time, shopping as experience or just feeling being connected with a larger entity? To my understanding this plan aims at forcing/cajoling residents of Cambridge and the future residents of the NEC to take up habits that are not easily instilled. It is mainly a stick-based approach and the carrots (shops, community centre and other amenities) so far have not been successful in reducing people's need (perceived or real) to travel to central Cambridge.

The vision statement aims to create an economically and socially inclusive living space. However, the current plans are mainly focusing on increasing the economic cost of car use in order to keep the NEC area free from traffic. However, this will lead to car free streets for those who can afford to pay the high cost of parking spaces and other levies on cars which will be in contrast to what the mission statement set to achieve in terms of inclusivity.

The majority of well-known private schools are located in Cambridge. Inevitably a good number of higher earners settling in the NEC would prefer to send their children to these schools, which will lead to drivers ferrying children in and out of the area during high congestion times, adding to the traffic. Already the effect of this group is clearly evident during rush hour in Cambridge, particularly in areas around the schools where they clearly obstruct main traffic flows. This is just one example of issues that will arise when services in a city are not distributed evenly.

I am writing on behalf of Barton & District Bridleways Group.
We would like to add our support for equestrian inclusion in the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of safe off road routes for equestrians.
Between 2010 and 2017 the BHS horse accidents website has recorded:
230 horses died on the roads and 840 were injured, 5 severely.
39 riders killed, 10 severely injured.
* 3,863 horse riders and carriage drivers in England and Wales were admitted to hospital for 'animal-rider or occupant animal-drawn vehicle injured in transport accident' in 2016-17 (source: NHS Hospital Episodes Statistics).
* Only 1 in 10 horse related road accidents are reported (source: British Horse Society).
The regions with the highest number of incidents are: West Yorkshire, South West and the East of England.

This week JESSE NORMAN MP, the Under Secretary of State for Transport
aid in the House of Commons that more bridleways are needed to reduce road accidents after a question from Laurence Robertson, MP for Tewkesbury.


Barton & District Bridleways Group has over 100 members. Although these riders will generally ride in the area of South West Cambridge they may also ride in the North East Cambridge area. For instance if they were visiting Milton Country Park, which is open to horses. With the Guided Busway Bridleway and the potential link with Waterbeach Greenway, there opens up the potential for equestrians from South West Cambridge to access areas of North East Cambridge. This can be achieved by access to the Guided Busway through Madingley and Girton, or via the proposed Barton and Comberton Greenways and also via Eddington. In the area we have local endurance riders, who need to train for longer rides, and instead of having to take their horses elsewhere, if the Bridleway network, including NMU paths was more joined up, they could ride more locally. This applies to all equestrians.

The length of the public right of way network currently amounts to 188,700km, consisting of
* 146,600km of footpaths,
* 32,400km of bridleways,
* 3,700km of byways and 6,000km of restricted byways.
* Horse riders currently only have access to 22% of public rights of way and horse-drawn vehicle drivers only 5%.
* The Cambridgeshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan - bridleway network is fragmented and in need of improvement. Development and the creation of shared pedestrian / cycle paths further fragments the network

Across the UK Horse riders are currently excluded from 78% of the Rights of Way network and carriage drivers are excluded from 95%.

I appreciate your time reading this letter and noting our response.

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 for much longer, and possibly permanently.

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.

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.

Question 17
A new bridge should be built and it should include a road.

At the moment the Fen Road level-crossing is sometimes closed for 20 minutes
continuously. This prevents emergency services from reaching a critical incident leading to potential loss of life. This imposes a serious negative discrimination against the communities at the north end of Fen Road. A new road bridge is required if the council is to meet its equalities responsibility to this community.

Furthermore, a road bridge will improve access for this community to the new services and facilities, and deliver employment opportunities to this deprived area.

Question 83
The bridge mentioned in point 6.25 "Crossing the railway line" should include road
access to the north end of Fen Road. It would make a valuable positive impact on that community with regards access to the emergency services and employment
opportunities, currently limited by the Fen Road level-crossing.
I believe a 'fast train' serried is needed between Cambridge North, Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. For this to be possible requires the level crossing to be shut permanently. This plan makes it essential to establish alternative access provision for communities and businesses North of the peel crossing and high quality waling, cycling links plus a new Raod bridge are required.

Q2: 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.

Q70: OBJECT

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.

Q2: Paragraph 3.6 of the Issues and Options consultation document is not agreed because this paragraph seems to assume that the AAP reflects not only that the land east of the railway is 'different in character' from the AAP area, (which it is) but that this means it can be treated as a separate entity (which it should not be, because of the issue of the only vehicular access to the area being via the Fen Road level crossing). The proposed boundary should therefore include the vehicular rail crossing on Fen Road as a material constraint on what should be permitted in other parts of the AAP area.

Para 7.6 of the consultationdocument refers to changes taking place in rail use, including increases in the north of the city which will inevitably have the impact of increasing train use of the Fen Road level crossing. These changes require consideration of alternative vehicular access to the area referred to (but then precluded from further consideration) in paras 3.6 and 4.7 of the consultation document

Current rail lobby and Lib Dem policy proposals to close the Fen Road level crossing to motor vehicles wouild leave those homes to the east of the railway along Fen Rd without vehicular access, unless opportunties are left open within the eastern section of the AAP to create an alternative vehicular access

Q3: This section fails to identify clearly the major physical constraints on the eastern part of the AAP area which are constituted by the A14, the railway, and constraining features on the south side including Bramblefields, the allotments, the current boundary with the Trinity Farm trading estate, the guided busway and the public drain, which combine to make Milton Rd and Cowley Rd effectively the only vehicular access to this part of the AAP site. These issues are referred to, but not adequately addressed in para 4.12: 'The NEC area has close connections to the A14 trunk road, and the A10, ..... Highway access to the site is mainly served via local junctions off Milton Road. Nuffield Road Industrial Estate is served fromGreen End Road. Parts of the highway network frequently operate at or nearcapacity, particularly in the morning and evening peaks with queuing and delays prevalent on Milton Road, as well as the A10 and A14, particularly at he Milton Interchange to the north'. But

These features are reduced to 'locational context' whereas they are evidently major physical constraints and should be included, referred to and addressed as such. The inference should be drawn that the eastern AAP site will suffer severe constraints on vehicular access to the site which will significantly constrain what development can take place within the AAP area.

Q4: The issues and options identified in this section fail to recognize either the impermeable physical constraints imposed on the original AAP area by the A14, the railway, the current frontier between Nuffield Rd and Cowley Park guided bus route, and the heavily used and frequently gridlocked Milton Road urban highway; or the fact that Milton Rd provides the only vehicular access to the eastern side of the AAP site Only an act of faith will persuade a reader (or, more importantly, an investor) that these constraints can somehow be addressed by more cycling and walking. Making a virtue out of such 'community cohesion' as this lack of permeability may create, appears to be making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Paragraph 1.13 of the consultation document glosses over contradictions by referencing the Ely to Cambridge Transport study, but this Study does not address the constraints imposed by existing Milton Rd congestion, but only what would be the best development options for the AAP site to minimise transport difficulties. Para 1.13 concedes that 'the Milton Road area is already 'congested', yet it is asserted that the AAP site is 'highly accessible'. The eastern half of the AAP area is only vehicle-accessible via Milton Road. It is therefore by definition 'congested' and not 'highly accessible' . It is not clear that opening up access to the eastern side of the AAP site via Nuffield Rd would improve that situation. An earlier (2002?) proposal to access the eastern side of the site directly from a slip road off the A14 roundabout appears to have been ignored or forgotten.

The 'highway trip budget' proposed is supported 'faut de mieux', but evidence is not forthcoming that development of the eastern part of the site by any combination of residential, commercial or exployment uses can achieve the appropriate level of 'balance' that para 1.12 suggests is required. All uses are likely to have broadly the same consequences in terms of unacceptable levels of congestion unless alternative transport access routes to this part of the site are opened up.

Q5 & Q6: The 'Vision' and 'Objectives' listed constitute a wish-list of desirable aspirations which do not evidently reflect the realities, and particularly the economic or transport realities, of such a heavily constrained site. For example, Objective 5 - integration with surrounding communities - though probably desirable, is likely to be exceptionally difficult to achieve within the eastern part of the AAP area in a context which is so physically constrained, which will be subject to pressures for the community to be extremely self-contained. These constraints are likely to force a high degree of separation on the eastern part of the AAP site, rather than integration with the area surrounding it.

Q14: Cambridge Regional Colege should be a major partner in the development of the AAP site, particularl in respect of the eastern secytion which will require major community develpoment input to achieve a viable community identity, to which CRC could make a significant contribution if it chose to take that responsibility seriously.

Q17: It is important that some form of vehicular mode of crossing the railway is established from within the AAP area, rather than just the cycling and pedestrian bridge proposed in para 6.25. One option would be to establish an access route to the AAP site from the A14 roundabout, and extend this across a bridge to Fen Road . Unless that option is properly considered, it is difficult to attach significance or meaning to the point in para 6.26 of 'an opportunity to reduce the dominance of Milton Rd'. How, if not by introducing an alternative route into and through the AAP site ?. This could also enable reduced pressure on the Fen Rd railway level crossing.

Q25: The chapter on Transport in the Issues and Options consultation paper rests on extremely shaky assumptions and lacks serious supporting evidence that any of the transport proposals being considered in the AAP are attainable. The Ely to Cambridge transport study proposes that 'the development of these sites will need to deliver measures that significantly reduce the car mode share for trips to and from the area through a combination of demand-side mechanisms such as parking restraint, and investment in measures to support non-car transport'. Para 7.2 of the consultation document concedes that 76% of work trips to the North East Cambridge area are currently made by car. There may be 'a real opportunity to improve this situation'; but despite the measures in place in para 7.8, those intended or being undertaken in para 7.5, and those wider improvements listed in para 8.9, the local authorities have not established the actual sustainable transport capacity which these and any other proposed measures will provide either for the Cambridge sub-region as a whole, or for the AAP area in particular, as required by NPPF paras 102,103 and 104 . 'Ambition' such as that referred to in 7.10 in respect of the Mayor's proposals is no substitute for the evidence of what might constitute the optimal possible 'balance' that can actually be achieved in this respect

The local authorities should establish first what sustainable transport capacity exists or can exist, both for this AAP area and for the Cambridge sub-region as a whole, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework

One way to relieve transport pressure on Milton Road could be to create an access to the AAP site directly off the A14 roundabout, which could also provide a bridge across the railway which could relieve the ptressure already experienced by vehicles using the Fen Rd level crossing (see response to qu 17).

Q26: While an ambition to achieve in the AAP area a low share of journeys made by car is supported, very little evidence is presented (or indeed available for comparable developments in our region ?) that this ambition is attainable or compatible with the proposal to develop 8,500 dwellings on the AAP site. Overall sustainable transport levels have never been established on the basis of evidence for the Cambridge sub-region, and until they have been and have been shown to match both existing realities on the ground and what can be sustainable in the future, this aspiration is just that: an aspiration, not evidently attainable

Q27: The 'highway trip budget' proposed is supported. This appears to be the most serious effort that the local aiuthorities have made to 'put transport first' in the the identification of development capacity of sites - an approach which the local authorities should have adopted from the start in identifying and supporting sites for development in their most recent Local Plans by establishing overall sustainable transport capacity across the local authorities' areas and using that information to compare all possible development options.

So this approach is supported 'faut de mieux', despite the fact that evidence is not forthcoming that development of the eastern part of the site by any combination of residential, commercial or employment uses can achieve the appropriate level of 'balance' that para 1.12 suggests is required. While The Ely to Cambridge Transport Study is used to justify a particular balance of uses including substantial residental development, all uses seem likely to have broadly the same consequences in terms of unacceptable levels of congestion of Milton Rd unless alternative transport access routes to this part of the site are opened up. It is not clear why (for example) an alternative access directly off the A14 roundabout has not been given consideration

Q55 & Q56: Responses to these two questions have been linked because both appear to be premised on the same assumption about the economic viability of commercial outlets within the AAP site which are highly questionable. The physical characteristics of the AAP area, and the aspiration (derived to a large extent from that constrained characer) for 'higher levels of internalised trip-making' must surely work against the likelihood of the sort of shopping self-sufficiency which is required to - or could even hope to - 'fully meet local needs' as sought in para 10.1. The record of local shopping centres in Cambridge remaining viable is not robust. It seems extremely unlikely that commercial outlets opetrating within such physical constraints and planning aspirations can hope to be economically viable, much less to be competent to 'fully meet local needs'

Q84: The possibility of moving the activities of Anglian Water away from the AAP site, and the possibility of consolidating their activities on a smaller site, has provided a very welcome stimulus to the local authorities to consider how the whole eastern part of the site might be re-configured. Added stimulus has come from the completion of Cambridge North station, the rerouting of public transport services to visit the new station, and the recent change to enable the City Council and SCDC to act jointly in respect of The eastern part of the AAP development sites.. All this is very welcome and is supported

But the exist ing area is the mess that it is for good reasons, not all of which pertain to the Anglian Water facility being located there, significant though that presence is. Because of its relat ive inaccessibility and the impermeability of its boundaries it is a convenient place to dump less desirable neighbours The area constitutes a hostile environment in itself which invites and encourages various forms of urban detritus: ugly buildings, car parking chaos, roadway congestion, large stretches of land effectively quarantined by lack of proper controls; and transport challenges unmet..

Unfortunately changing such features as Anglian Water Company does not alter the fact that all the original external constraints on the site still apply. These will be exacerbated by any increase in vehicle use of that section of |Milton Road which governs, and is likely to govern, access to the easter part of the AAP site.

Transforming such an unattractive and inherently disadvantaged area into a model of urban regeneration on the scale proposed can only be carried out with a massive investment of financial resources. These are only likely to be forthcoming as part of a level of growth which is fundamentally unattractive to many, and to which it is not evident that Cambridge residents have so far 'signed up' .

So objections are on two broad grounds
1. The inherent difficulties and expense of what is proposed in the 'vision' can only be addressed by raising the resources from levels of urban growth on a wider canvass which local people are unlikely to wish to support
2. The local authorities have not shown that the particular transport challenges which the proposals will pose for Milton Road can be addressed, or will be addressed, until the local authorities achieve a proper understanding of what levels of transport activity the Cambridge sub-region can sustain