Question 84: Do you have any other comments about the North East Cambridge area and/or AAP? Are there other issues and alternatives that the councils should consider? If you wish to make suggestions,

This development must provide access to the A14 for the residents of Fen Road and the closing of the dangerous level crossing on Fen Road. It will also be impossible for new residents to access this site if their own option is to come past the science park area which is already too busy and therefore a source of pollution for the area as cars sit idol for long periods of time due to congestion.

Access to the site cannot be via Chesterton. Lorries and cars already use roads such as Green End Road as a rat run driving at dangerous speeds past the primary school.

The 3 consultation documents below were placed on the agenda for our meeting last Thursday.

Bar Hill Parish Council had no comment to make on any of these consultation documents.


* North East Cambridge Area Action Plan - Issues and Options 2019

* Greater Cambridge Statement of Community Involvement

* Greater Cambridge Local Plan - 'Call for Sites'

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.

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL). I can confirm that TfL has no comments to make on the consultation document listed below:

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan - Issues and Options 2019

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 sine-qua-non of the whole thing is "Where would the sewage works be put ?". This needs to be sorted out before loads of time is wasted on what might happen if the sewage works were moved.

Cycle paths need to be updated to NMU to include equestrians.
Housing stock need to be council or housing association as current policy of shared housing and new buyer incentives is only driving up the prices, increasing the London commuter distance and generating large profits for developers who contribute nothing to the local community.
Lessons to be learned - we need to learn from the recent development at Cambourne and Northstowe of villages with limited travel links and poor quality communities.

The period of the consultation is extremely short and local people aren't getting enough opportunity to be involved. This website for responding to the survey was difficult to find. The documents are numerous and lengthy. You've spent months and years preparing this and yet we have to comment at the last minute in a matter of weeks.

I know you've got a chunk of money to move the sewage works. Where on earth to? Shouldn't this be the first question on the agenda, not what you're going to do with the land once the sewage works has been moved? As that will be a minimum five year fight where ever you plan to move it to.

Provide vehicle access to the area east of the railway. Provide for a church building within the North East Cambridge Area. Encourage sustainable travel but without cutting off access for those who need cars.

I am very concerned about the increase of cars on Milton Road

There should be publicly accessible toilets, ideally of the highest standards eg. changing places toilets. This is essential for making areas accessible to all.

Take into account air quality with district heating schemes; it might be better if fossil fuels are to be burned, not to do it where people are living and working.

Will significant amounts of sewage still pass under the site to the sewage works site? Will there be a pumping station? What happens if the pumps fail? No-one should end up living or working in the smell of sewage.

Parking controls should be in-place throughout construction, and before first residents move in.

Cycleway surfacing needs to be considered. Deicing methods and ways of keeping cycle paths and pedestrian paths safe in the ice and snow should be used - heating the paths should be considered.

Industries requiring lots of large lorries are incompatible with safe cycling and walking.

Integrate art into the design (as opposed to raising taxes to fund art workshops etc.) , use high quality materials so far as possible.

Consult in an open and transparent manner.

National Grid has appointed Wood to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.

We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NE Cambridgeshire Area Action Plan Issues and Options. This letter relates to the services of the Employment and Infrastructure Department, which also incorporates other services provided by the county council where relevant.

Having reviewed the content of the documents published online, HCC do not consider that consultations have an impact on HCC services and as such do not have comments to make at this stage.

We look forward to working with you regarding further progress your Area Action Plan and other Planning Policy related document.

Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above document. As the
Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Historic England is primarily concerned with the historic environment and from an examination of our records it is clear that there are no designated heritage assets within, or immediately adjacent to, the area covered by the proposed Area Action Plan (AAP). However, depending on the scale of new buildings on the site, there is the potential for development of this area to impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. Those include assets located within the historic core of Cambridge, the character and appearance of the central conservation area (and in particular the eastern arm that extends along the river corridor immediately to the south of this site) and the conservation area of Fen Ditton to the east of the site, including the wider setting of the many listed buildings that lie within that conservation area.

Our detailed comments are listed below by paragraph/question/figure.

Glossary - Historic Environment typo - time rather than tine. We also suggest the
addition of a definition for Conservation Areas.

Paragraph 4.14 We welcome this section on townscape and landscape. We welcome the requirement to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the overall character and qualities of the townscape and skyline of Cambridge as the city continues to develop into the future. We suggest that the Cambridge Central and Fen Ditton Conservation Areas are specifically mentioned in this paragraph. As set out above, development of this area has the potential to impact upon the wider settings of these conservation areas.

Question 6 Overarching Objectives. Whilst we broadly welcome the overarching objectives for NEC, there is no mention of the Historic Environment and in particular
the conservation areas and listed buildings/townscape and skyline. Some reference to the historic environment needs to be included in the objectives. Objective 9 could
also benefit from adding reference the need for development to draw on to local
vernacular/buildings materials etc.

Question 15 of the document asks should clusters of taller buildings around areas of
high accessibility including district and local centres and transport stops form part of a design-led approach to this new city district. We would broadly support higher density development around transport interchanges and district or local centres. However, the consultation refers to appropriate building heights with no mention of what height might be considered appropriate. Unfortunately there is no evidence base included with the document to explain the impact that the varying heights of buildings might have on designated heritage assets to the south west, south and east of this site. It is therefore difficult to objectively comment on the potential impact of taller buildings. You will be aware that we had considerable input into the Local Plan policy for tall buildings. We commend the approach set out in the Local Plan to this situation. We note that page 82 indicates that a Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment is to be completed. This work might help to inform an appropriate strategy in this regard. The impact of tall buildings on the Conservation Areas, listed buildings, townscape and wider skyline will require careful consideration.

We can comment that it is likely that new buildings of similar heights to those on the
existing Cambridge Business Park would not adversely impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. However, the new Cambridge North station is located in the
southeast corner of the site and tall buildings in the vicinity of this station would have
an increased potential to adversely impact on the character and appearance of the
Cambridge central conservation area (and in particular the eastward arm that extends along the river corridor to the south of this site), the Fen Ditton conservation area to the east and the setting of listed buildings within both conservation areas. Without a robust evidence base Historic England is unable to support a more flexible approach to the issue of building heights within the AAP.

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

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your
colleagues.

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above in your email of 11 February 2019. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has no objection to the proposed regeneration of the North East Cambridge (NEC) Area, the principle of which is established in the recently adopted Local Plans. However, this is subject to the inclusion of robust policies within the Area Action Plan (AAP) to ensure delivery of a truly sustainable development including provision of strategic high quality multifunctional open space, with a long-term management strategy, to meet the needs of people and wildlife. We would expect the scale of development to deliver a green infrastructure network along the lines of similar developments elsewhere such as Cambourne, Trumpington Meadows and Waterbeach New Town. Development through the AAP should be guided by an established green infrastructure and biodiversity framework to ensure the NEC Area is capable of delivering the range of environmental services and natural capital required to meet the needs of the scale and nature of proposed development.

We note that the planning process for the future location of the Water Recycling Centre is outside the scope of this AAP and that this will be progressed by the County Council as the Local Planning Authority for waste matters.

Natural England welcomes proposals to undertake further environmental assessment work to inform preparation of the AAP, including air quality and noise assessments and habitat surveys. Whilst the majority of the NEC Area is brownfield land it supports significant local biodiversity interest and opportunities for enhancement. Advice should be sought from relevant sources including the Council ecologists and the Wildlife Trusts. Retention of all existing biodiversity interest and identification of opportunities for environmental enhancement should be a priority for the development of the green infrastructure and biodiversity framework and long-term enhancement and management strategy for the AAP.

The NEC Area Today
Figure 4.8 shows the extent of existing green and blue Infrastructure across the NEC area. However, we believe there may be additional areas of green infrastructure that are not included on the map. This should be confirmed and amended if necessary through the proposed ecological survey work.

We welcome recognition of ecological constraints in section 4.13; however, these are positives, not negatives, and should be seen as significant areas for retention and enhancement and the focus for development of a green infrastructure and biodiversity framework for the AAP. The AAP provides a unique opportunity for the enhancement, extension and improved connectivity of areas such as Bramblefields Local Nature Reserve (LNR), the protected hedgerow on the east side of Cowley Road (City Wildlife Site) and the First Public Drain wildlife corridor and other habitats including ponds and areas of woodland, scrub and grassland. The AAP should take every opportunity to retain and enhance as much of the natural environment as possible and to provide biodiversity rich green corridors across the site and beyond.

Section 4.20 and 4.22 acknowledge the requirement to deal with potential contaminated land and other environmental issues such as minimising light pollution which we fully support.

Vision and Strategic Objectives
Natural England supports the AAP vision and objectives for 'a socially and economically inclusive, thriving, and low carbon place for innovative living and working; inherently walkable where everything is on your doorstep'. We welcome the objective for green spaces to be a core part of the place structure extending, connecting and improving biodiversity to achieve a net gain and integrating Sustainable Drainage Systems within the development. As mentioned above, we believe the AAP should be developed around a robust green infrastructure framework for the site to ensure delivery of the full range of environmental services required to meet the needs of the proposed scale and nature of development: recreation, health and well-being, biodiversity, landscape, drainage, flood management, sustainable travel, climate change and adaptation. We note the following statement:

"Green infrastructure capitalises on the network of existing trees and landscape but also extends this to create an overall framework to improve biodiversity and linkages to the wider countryside. Embedded into this framework will be the water management network that improves the First Drain and adds richness to the landscape. A new green space at a district scale will enrich the heart of this new place and provide the kind of multifunctional space that is so typical of Cambridge and central to public life."

Whilst we fully support the above we would expect a development of this magnitude to deliver significantly greater than 'district scale' green infrastructure, although we are unclear what this really means. We have provided further advice on green infrastructure provision below.

Place Making
Sections 6.14 and 6.15 discuss creating a healthy community which we fully support. Our advice is that a strategic level of high quality greenspace provision will be key to creating a healthy community and enhancing people's physical and mental wellbeing. The extent of accessible natural greenspace provision (i.e. excluding formal sports areas) should be proportionate to the scale of development, for example 8ha 11000 population is advocated through the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) guidance to meet people's needs and protect more sensitive designated sites such as Stow-cum-Quy Fen Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Wicken Fen SSSI, Ramsar site. Whilst quantity of provision should be broadly aligned with SANGS guidance, green infrastructure design should seek to achieve the Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, detailed in Nature Nearby, including the minimum standard of 2ha informal open space within 300m of everyone's home.

Further consideration should also be given to significantly enhanced green infrastructure corridors to improve connectivity of green infrastructure within the site and beyond, including green linkages with Milton Country Park. Green infrastructure provision should seek to contribute towards the delivery of the objectives of the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy for habitat enhancement and improved connectivity. The AAP should not rely on existing green space such as Milton Country Park to meet people's recreational needs; the AAP should seek provision of similar area of open space to complement and connect the Country Park.

Natural England agrees that the development of the NEC Area presents an opportunity to create a new network of streets and open spaces that will support and improve movement of people throughout the area. Creation of sufficient informal open space for outdoor recreation, enjoyment of the countryside, walking, cycling and adequate public transport provision will be critical to this. A network of green corridors should provide connectivity to areas off site including the Country Park, the Chisholm Trail and Waterbeach Greenways.

We note and welcome Option C to upgrade connections to Milton Country Park by both foot and cycle, including improving access to the Jane Coston Bridge, the Waterbeach Greenway project including a new access under the A 14. We would welcome consideration of options for a crossing of the railway line and the use of green bridges.

Issue: Green Space provision - Natural England advises that this needs to be addressed through a combination of options A -F to provide strategic high quality, biodiversity-rich multi-functional greenspace. This should seek to meet SANGS standards and be connected through substantial green corridors to open spaces across the site and beyond, including connectivity with Milton Country Park, Waterbeach Greenways and the Chisholm Trail, as discussed above.

Transport
Natural England advocates a focus on sustainable, non-car travel including cycling, walking and public transport.

Retail, Leisure and Community Services & Facilities
We welcome recognition of the multi-functional benefits of open space provision including biodiversity enhancement, landscape, drainage, flood management and health and wellbeing. A development of this scale should provide open space to accommodate formal and informal requirements: informal open space in accordance with SANGS, as discussed above, to provide biodiversity net gain and meet people's informal recreation, physical and mental health needs.

Climate change
We support proposals to contribute towards mitigating and adapting to climate change including the application of sustainable design and construction standards detailed in section 11.7. Natural England welcomes proposals outlined in section 11.14 for policies to integrate a SUDs network into the Fen edge landscape that could help to enhance opportunities for specified species as well as providing a sense of place.

Biodiversity
Natural England supports proposals to achieve measurable biodiversity net gain in accordance with national planning guidance and the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Natural England advises that the Council's should not simply strive to meet this target, through encouragement of quick wins such as green roof provision; the AAP should ensure significant long-term gains through development of a biodiversity and green infrastructure framework, delivery and long-term management strategy for the area, to guide wider development. Ecological surveys should identify key habitats for retention, buffering and enhancement and opportunities for creation of a wide range of additional habitat to complement, extend and connect existing habitats.

These areas should incorporate a wide range of environmental services including informal open space, landscaping and SUDS provision. The advice of relevant stakeholders including the Council ecologists, Wildlife Trust and Natural England should be sought on the preparation of a Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Strategy and its delivery secured through robust plan policies.

Please note that Natural England's Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) have been published since this site was originally allocated for development in the Local Plan, a number of years ago. The IRZs are currently being updated to take into account evidence for recreational pressure risks to designated sites such as Stow-cum-Quy Fen and Wicken Fen. The provision of adequate level and quality of alternative accessible open space within large developments is crucial to mitigating the adverse effects of those developments, through increased recreational pressure, to sensitive designated sites.

We note the statement in section 11.17 that off site improvements may be required if biodiversity net gain cannot be fully achieved on site. Whilst we welcome this we believe that a development of this scale can deliver significant biodiversity net gain within the area boundary subject to proper planning and design from the outset.

Implementation and Delivery
We note and welcome the proposal to prepare a North East Cambridge Infrastructure Delivery Plan to provide a broad assessment of the social and physical infrastructure needed to support the planned development and regeneration of NEC and how these requirements could be met. Natural England advises that this should include identification of green infrastructure needed to deliver the range of environmental services required by the development including recreation, drainage, landscape and biodiversity enhancements.
Natural England supports the intention through the AAP to put in place a Section 106 regime to ensure all proposed developments across NEC contribute equitably to the provision and/or funding of all appropriate infrastructure requirements. We trust that this will include provision of green infrastructure including informal open space and biodiversity.

Interim Sustainability Appraisal
Natural England is satisfied that the Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) objectives and framework generally accord with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations. The SA seeks to address the effects of the AAP on key aspects of the natural environment including designated sites, biodiversity, landscape, green infrastructure and soils. The assessment and recommendations / mitigation will need to be updated as the AAP policies evolve and to take into account the findings and mitigation recommendations of the outstanding environmental assessments.

Other advice: Priority habitats, ecological networks and priority / protected species populations The AAP should be underpinned by up to date environmental evidence including an assessment of existing and potential components of local ecological networks. This assessment should inform the Sustainability Appraisal, ensure that land of least environment value is chosen for development, and that the mitigation hierarchy is followed and inform opportunities for enhancement as well as development requirements for particular sites.

Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Further information is available here: Habitats and species of principal importance in England . Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area.

Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Further information can be found here Standing advice for protected species. Sites containing watercourses, old buildings, significant hedgerows and substantial trees are possible habitats for protected species. Ecological networks are coherent systems of natural habitats organised across whole landscapes so as to maintain ecological functions. A key principle is to maintain connectivity - to enable free movement and dispersal of wildlife e.g. badger routes, river corridors for the migration of fish and staging posts for migratory birds. Local ecological networks will form a key part of the wider Nature Recovery Network proposed in the 25 Year Environment Plan. Where development is proposed, opportunities should be explored to contribute to the enhancement of ecological networks.

Planning positively for ecological networks will also contribute towards a strategic approach for the creation , protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, as identified in paragraph 171 of the NPPF.

Water Quality and Resources and Flood Risk Management
Natural England expects the AAP to consider the strategic impacts on water quality and resources as outlined in paragraph 170 of the NPPF. We would also expect the plan to address flood risk management in line with the paragraphs 155-165 of the NPPF. The AAP should contain policies which protect habitats from water related impacts and where appropriate seek enhancement. Priority for enhancements should be focused on statutorily designated and local sites which contribute to a wider ecological network. The AAP should positively contribute to reducing flood risk by working with natural processes and where possible use Green Infrastructure policies and the provision of SUDs to achieve this.

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.

Q 2. Is the proposed boundary the most appropriate?

No. The proposed boundary should include the area to the East of the railway line, along Fen Road.

This area has suffered for years from a range of well-known social and related problems. Closure of the level crossing would require that part of Fen Road to be connected to the northern end of Milton Road, or directly to the Milton Road/A14 junction with a bridge over the railway line.

Q 3. Have the physical characteristics of the area been correctly identified

No. There is no mention of the lack of Secondary Schools, and those matrked onb the map are incorrectly positioned.

Q 11. Are there particular land uses that should be accommodated?

Yes, there should be a Secondary School and as much as possible of the area between the railway line and the river should be designated as a Riverside Country park

Q 15. Should clusters of taller buildings for part of the design

Not without very specific constraints on height. Six storeys should be set as an absolute limit.

Q 17. Explore delivery of a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the railway line?

Yes, certainly, but there should also be a new road and bridge to link with Fen Road so that the level crossing can be closed

Q 20. and 21. a and b
No I do not agree with proposals to include low levels of car parking. They will cause the surrounding residential streets to be swamped with displaced cars belonging to residents of the proposed new development.
Car parking provision should be close to one parking space per residential unit. Until adequate public transport is provided it is not feasible to reduce the number of car parking spaces on the Science Park.

Q. 24. Green space
The provision of adequate green space must be explicit, controlled by the City Council and not delegated to developers.

I strongly support combination of all of the proposed elements and rigorous enforcement on developers.

Q. 27. Trip budget and reduction of car use
This can only be affective where a proper system of public transport is in place. That means something other than buses, for example a tram, or if a proper tram cannot be achieved then the 'CAM'. Buses, especially conventional diesel buses, do not provide a viable, sustainable or attractive alternative to cars.
The integration of the AAP with a tramway or CAM is an essential prerequisite. The guided busway in its present form is almost completely irrelevant to what is proposed, other than for a small number of trips from Northstowe, Histon/Impington and Darwin Green/Eddington to the Science Park.

Q. 28. Low and reduced car parking ?
No, see above

Qs. 29 and 30
Yes, cycle parking must be prioritised and made obligatory

Q. 33 Innovative connections between Cambridge North and the Science Park
The guided busway is not adequate or attractive. A tram or CAM is needed.

Q. 37 Industrial uses to be retained?

Existing light industrial uses should be moved next to the A14, facilitated by a new road connection along the top of the site connecting to Milton Road on the A 14 junction. That could include the bus depot. Railway sidings should also be retained for future needs.
Q. 38 Mix of dwelling sizes
Yes, a mix of sizes, and family units should be included. That is essential to achieve a balanced stable community

Q. 39, 40,41 Housing for essential local workers
Yes, certainly. Absolutely vital and should be adhered to and enforced. No side deals for substitution with student accommodation etc.

Q. 43 HMO?
I am not at all convinced by this, so without further detail, no.

Qs 44- 46 PRS
I recommend involving a local housing association.

Q. 51 and 53 and 54
The highest/best local and national standards should be applied, so that no compromises are made away from the largest possible internal space, best direct access to private amenity space, and highest standards of accessibility.

Q. 55
There must be adequate provision for independent retail, which should be prioritised over national chains. There is no need to attempt to duplicate city centre/other major leisure and retail provision.

Q. 57
Use the Trumpington/Eddington models for community centre/library/medical. Include a secondary school. Faiths should be given proper allocation of space.

Q. 59 Space provision: Quality and functionality not quantity
No. Adequate quantity is essential, see above re riverside park.

Q. 67 Net gain in biodiversity ?
Go to Eddington for methods. Appoint an ecology chief for the area from the start.

Q.69 Underground waste system
Yes, again use the Eddington example.

Q. 84 Any other comments
The AAP proposals have evolved into a massive addition to the urban fringe of Cambridge.
There is no acceptable reason why residential building density and height need to be imposed on a scale that is out of character with the rest of Cambridge, on a site which will be visible from various places including the historic and invaluable riverside, parts of the city and Chesterton, and Fen Ditton.
If excessive height and density is the only basis on which funding can be obtained to move the Sewage Works, then it would be better to leave the Sewage Works where it is until an appropriate alternative approach can be found to redevelopment that is not alien to Cambridge.

Dear North East Cambridge (NEC) Planning Team

Thank you for inviting a response to your proposals, which I received through my letterbox about a month after the start of the consultation period, and thus only two weeks before the closing date. As a result, I am having to write to you while on an extended foreign trip. That is not a satisfactory way to consult.

I write as a someone who has lived on the edge of the NEC area for over 40 years, a period which has seen many changes in the area, and on its periphery. I have followed these changes keenly. I welcome in broad terms the development of the NEC area, but wish to make the following observations:

1. Noting the proposed vision and objectives, I would strongly question whether "the place" as currently delineated could achieve "a strong identity", as proposed in objective 1. I think that the area is fundamentally two distinct places, on either side of Milton Road, north east of the Kings Hedges Road/Green End Road crossing.

2. To the left, heading north east are the established residential communities largely along the Kings Hedges & Lovell Road axes, plus their Regional College and Science Park neighbours. There is no scope for further residential development, without major change of use from commercial to residential use between Seeleys Court and the Science Park, which you are not proposing. It seems to me that the major issues in this part of the area are (i) the creation of a Local Centre to serve the residential population (plus that of Ramsden Square), for which provision is indicated in your proposal, and is welcome, and (ii) hugely improved links across Milton Road at its widest, busiest and most complex, to Cambridge North station by bike, foot and public transport. Again, this is outlined in your proposal and is welcome. However, wide and busy arterial roads delineate areas with which communities identify. There are no convincing arguments in your proposal that north east Milton Road is an exception to this rule. Given this major constraint, the two sides of the road are and will surely remain distinct areas for the great majority of people residing and/or working in them.

3. To the right, heading north east, is an utterly contrasting area, with little current residential provision, but plans for very substantial residential development to the north of Cambridge North station, including on sites that are currently industrial. This is welcome, but the ambitions expressed for this development - in your vision and objectives statement - seem to me muddled and of limited use. How about setting the vision in terms such as "a place that strives for the highest attainable health, wellbeing and harmony of all who live, work and play there, through setting, promoting and sustaining the highest possible standards of urban landscape design, environmental cleanliness, ease of transport, and work, recreational, and local democratic management opportunities, while achieving net zero carbon usage, and in so doing acting as a standard bearer for the whole of Greater Cambridge" Such a vision statement would lend itself better to the development of specific, measurable, achievable, reviewable, time-related objectives.

4. Finally, your proposals are inadequate as regards the involvement of the population of the area or areas in the development of their 'quarter(s)'. A series of one-off consultations, with or without 'proposals ping-pong' with residents associations and other interests, are not substitutes for an ongoing rich dialogue with the local residential, business and other communities, organised in a way that enjoys popular confidence in the area(s). This needs to be re-considered, and proposals brought forward for public discussion.

I hope that these comments are useful.

If I can get into your online interactive consultation system from my present location, I will attempt to respond via there as well.

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.

1. The WTC should not be relocated to a greenbelt or greenfield site, flood risk area or an existing or planned community. Existing rules on safe-guarding must be complied with. If the decision is taken to relocate the WTC to an acceptable brownfield site, CPRE would like assurance that contamination on the vacated site can be fully remediated before development commences.

2.The height and scaling of buildings should be sympathetically arranged to ensure that the view from the East from open countryside and the River Cam towards the development is not compromised.

Air traffic using Cambridge Airport should not be compromised by building heights. The existing Milton Road corridor and community should not be surrounded by overbearing tower blocks or industrial buildings. Nevertheless, the development needs to include suitable employment space, for businesses which may be spawned from the nearby Science Park and St Johns Innovation Centre as well as businesses capable of providing services to those research and development clusters. The area should be developed to reflect this.

3. Air quality, light, and noise pollution should not intrude on or be detrimental to the tranquility of the open countryside and the River Cam corridor. Green space and wildlife corridors should be strategically arranged thoughout the development to enhance biodiversity and for the wellbeing of community. Consideration should be given to creating a green fringe between the River Cam towpath and the development.

4. CPRE supports the use of non motorised vehicular travel. However the towpath along the River Cam should remain predominately an area for pedestrians and those who wish to enjoy the tranquility of the river bank and the Fen Rivers Way that runs along the river bank from Cambridge to Ely in a more leisurely and peaceful fashion. Safeguarding this unique public space and biodiversity should be a priority.

5. The necessary infrastructure and transport links for this development and Waterbeach New Town need to be funded,considered and strategically delivered together as a cohesive plan and not in a piecemeal fashion or to the detriment of surrounding communities.

6. Climate change and water stress need to be fully considered to ensure that the proposed development is sustainable, viable and "future proof" taking into account the availability of water as Sir James Bevan has recently warned:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/escaping-the-jaws-of-death-ensuring-enough-water-in-2050.
Concerns have been raised by local bodies regarding the potential for over extraction of water from the River Cam and local aquifers which are currently licensed at their safe extraction limits. It is feared that over populating the course of the River Cam may hugely exacerbate water stress and have a negative effect on the agricultural businesses that rely on a combination of river water and borehole water to irrigate their crops during the dry summers which charcterise this area.

7. An inclusive approach to community development should be followed which is designed to benefit the new and existing communities, particularly the deprived areas of Arbury and King's Hedges, other existing communities within the proposed AAP boundary and the villages that will sit alongside it.

Q16: Greenways link from the NEC to Waterbeach should include useage dedicated to cycle, bridleway, pedestrians, wheelchair and mobility scooter users. The towpath between the NEC and Waterbeach should be maintained for leisure to ensure a tranquil enjoyment of the banks of the river Cam. Cycle super highway and recreation tranquility uses need to be segregated.

Q17: Issue crossing the railway line. The towpath should remain a tranquil area for leisure, dog walkers , fishermen, etc. This would also protect the riverbank from overuse and ensure users safety.

Q71: Relocation of the Milton WTC. Waterbeach Parish Council strongly agree that the AAP should include a strategy for the provision of water recycling capacity. WPC also believe that the existing site within the AAP is ideally situated and can be expanded to include capacity for Waterbeach New Town all within a brownfield site. This would avoid the need for de-contamination and maintain its situation within an Industrial area.

WPC would also suggest Local Planning Authorities make decisions on Water recycling in preference to leaving this to the market to resolve. Waterbeach Parish Council hope these decisions would then be made for technical reasons for the benefit of the people of Cambridge and the surrounding countryside.

Q84: Waterbeach Parish Council believe that it is important to ensure that the required upgrade of the A10 corridor and sustainable transport links between Cambridge and Ely are strategically delivered ahead of the proposed Waterbeach New Town and NEC should they come forward together. It is important that any decision regarding the relocation of the WTC is taken and managed by the Local Authorities within the AAP.

In considering this, please plan for a road link across the railway. As the station becomes even busier, the community at Fen Road, North of the rail crossing will feel more and more cut off. There must be plans for a bridge or tunnel, and land safeguarded to allow this to happen, however it is to be paid for.

Also, please consider safeguarding a way to connect a foul sewer across under the railway. Inequalities in public services must not be made worse by the plans you are putting forward.

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

1. There is very little mention of facilities and access for disabled people who cannot walk far or cycle. What are your plans to meet these needs?

2. It seems that there is only one bus route servicing the station - there needs to be many more routes from the station into Cambridge and surrounding villages. The buses need to be more frequent as well, especially on the weekends.
The buses could be smaller and run more frequently which could ease the journey into Cambridge.

3. More staff

4. Open up routes across the river for pedestrians, bikes, cars and public transport.

5. More security at night

6. More facilities - cafes, shops, bigger sheltered waiting areas

7. More people friendly environment - trees, flowers, water features, shade, shelter, use of renewables

8. Truly affordable housing, with adequate infrastructure for health, schools, shops