Policy 22: Managing motorised vehicles

Object

Representation ID: 52008

Received: 12/08/2020

Respondent: Miss Fiona Hynd

If you build, traffic will increase. You can't stop that. Trying to force people to not use cars will not work. And trying to limit traffic from milton road to king hedges road is not a good idea. People need to commute, people need to be able to drive outside of the region. Traffic calming measures doesn't stop people moving around. Also disabled people need to be allowed to move around too

Object

Representation ID: 54447

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management

Agent: Turley

This policy seeks to ensure development would meet sustainability objectives thereby delivering a ‘low carbon development’. However in seeking to achieve this the operational requirements of all users must be considered and accommodated within the AAP. For example, many of the business operators currently occupying the units on the eastern side of Milton Road need car parking for customers as well as employees and often the hours of operation of these businesses means that there is a greater reliance on cars to access the site. The study commissioned by G L Hearn, Mixed Use Development: Overcoming barriers to delivery at North East Cambridge acknowledges that whilst commercial elements need to be managed to minimise effects there is a need to ensure that they are not operationally constrained. This is particularly the case for operators of trade counters or manufacturers of large items, where the use of public transport or ‘last minute hubs’ would not be practicable. Car parking provision adjacent to these types of commercial uses is essential in order for them to operate efficiently. This, along with vehicular access, is very important and if future proposals do not take account of and allow for this then the impact on the continued success of these businesses could be jeopardised particularly as they rely on being close to the City but due to affordability constraints are unable to relocate closer to the City Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 54527

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

The trip budget scheme is ambitious, but not supported with an appropriate model, nor a plausible action plan for reducing car parking provision on existing sites. Immediate action will be needed to reduce motor vehicle trips and car parking in the AAP area before any construction begins.

0.5 parking spaces per dwelling is too high for the carbon budget required for this site. Rather than begin with existing Local Plan guidelines on car parking spaces and assume that private car ownership will continue to be the default for half the new households, the Area Action Plan should set realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. Spacing of vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading should be designed to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. The whole development should support every aspect of a zero-carbon lifestyle.

Note that Utrecht is building a 'car-free' site for 12,000 people where parking is kept to the edges and the interior is car-free*. The parking is reported as 1 space per 3 households (1,800 spaces total) and there will be 300 car-sharing spaces.

*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/forward-thinking-utrecht-builds-car-free-district-for-12000-people

Comment

Representation ID: 55696

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
It is accepted that motorised vehicular trips will need to be managed, and sustainable travel options enhanced. Whilst the Plan could and indeed should encourage developers to work together to agree a site-wide Transport Assessment and Travel Plan with the local highway authority as proposed, the local authorities have a key role in this regard, and development should not be dependent on just all developers working together.

The importance of limiting vehicular trips generated by new development is understood and the College remains committed to developing sustainable transport measures. Whilst planning for a three-fold increase in the amount of commercial floor space on the Innovation Park, no increase in car parking provision is planned on the Park. Car parking across the area, and beyond, should be assessed in light of further development parcel capacity work across the area in response to the responses to this consultation. There should not be a blanket requirement for each land parcel to reduce its existing car parking allocation / occupancy.

Support

Representation ID: 55911

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 22 seeks to define a maximum vehicle trip budget for motorised vehicles across the North East Cambridge area, in order to reduce travel by private car. The proposed redevelopment of 127-136 Cambridge Science Park is based on a restrictive approach to car parking, with no increase in car parking from existing levels at the site. The site is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. The proposed redevelopment of the site would be consistent with the aims to reduce and manage motorised vehicles within the North East Cambridge AAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 55932

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Ridgeons Timber & Builders Merchants and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 22 seeks to define a maximum vehicle trip budget for motorised vehicles across the North
East Cambridge area, in order to reduce travel by private car. However, the monitoring system for
the trip budget should be designed to exclude delivery and customer vehicles to businesses. For
example, if the existing builders merchant operation at the Ridgeons site is relocated to Cowley
Road Industrial Estate or another site within the AAP area, it would be unreasonable for the
vehicle movements associated with this type of business to be included within the trip budget,
since there are typically a high volume of delivery and customer vehicles visiting this type of use
during the day and sustainable modes of transport are an unrealistic option for the type of goods
sold. It is requested that the trip budget excludes delivery and customer vehicles to certain
specified types or character of businesses within the area to include builders merchant type uses.
Equally, if Ridgeons is able to relocate and release their site for development the existing
vehicular movements from the Ridgeons operations should be carried forward to the new use.

Support

Representation ID: 55981

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 22 seeks to define a maximum vehicle trip budget for motorised vehicles across the North
East Cambridge area, in order to reduce travel by private car. The proposed development parcel
that includes the Barr Tech site would be located in highly sustainable location, making it possible
for businesses, residents and visitors to the proposed uses to travel by non-car modes of
transport. However, motorised vehicles will still need access the area, and it is requested that the
monitoring system for the trip budget should be designed to exclude delivery vehicles to
businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 56022

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy 22 sets out a maximum vehicle trip budget for the AAP on to Milton Road during AM and PM peaks. In order to comply with this trip budget the area as a whole will need to significantly reduce existing car-drive mode share provision of sustainable travel options and significant reductions in existing parking allocation to 0.5 spaces per dwelling as a starting point, with an expectation that lower levels will be achieved for all housing types and tenures.

The supporting Transport Topic Paper sets out the requirements for modal share based on this trip budget, which for 27,000 jobs and 7,600 homes requires a reduction of vehicle mode share to 26% for employment uses and 10-13% for residential uses. We would question how achievable these targets are for such a large quantum of dwellings and employment uses?

Looking specifically at the issue of “discouraging car use” as a key element of the Vision for NEC, we have the following comments:

• The NEC AAP introduces the concept of a vehicular trip budget for the NEC area, which effectively means that future levels of traffic flow along Milton Road and Kings Hedges Road are no different to existing levels of traffic flow. This is due to limited highway capacity, plus the negative impacts of unfettered traffic growth on air quality and place-making, amongst other matters.
• Delivery of the vehicular trip budget requires a significant reduction in the car driver mode share for the area. For employment uses, the reduction is from an existing 71% to a future 29%. This is a significant and unprecedented reduction. The reduction in car driver mode share (for the AM peak) for residential uses is from an existing 29% to 12%.
• The reductions will require existing employment uses within the NEC area to reduce their current levels of car parking, since car parking provision is inherently linked to car trip generation. It is unclear how this will be achieved. Trinity College, the owners of the Cambridge Science Park, does have a car parking management plan that seeks no net change in the Science Park’s car parking provision by 2030 compared to existing levels, but it does not seek to achieve a reduction in existing car parking levels. The car parking provision for Cambridge Regional College will need to nearly halve from 621 spaces (this is the current maximum demand) to 390 spaces.
• Future employment developments within the NEC area will have stringent car parking standards imposed on them, which can be deliverable for new developments. However, these car parking standards will need to be even more stringent if the existing employment uses in the area do not reduce their own levels of car parking significantly.
• For residential uses, achieving the vehicular trip budget will reduce average car parking provision to no more than 0.5 spaces per dwelling across NEC. This is unprecedented in Cambridge for such a scale of development.

These findings should be carefully considered by the Councils in considering the implications of the proposed strategy regarding car use at NEC. We would also highlight that the strategy of discouraging car use is heavily dependent upon the delivery of the CAM, new cycle routes and adequate rail services as alternative modes of travel, although the time horizons for the delivery of these projects remains unclear, if indeed some are delivered at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 56156

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

The policy states that development will not be permitted if vehicles exceed the trip budget, however the budget has been
proposed for the entire area as a whole and therefore it is unclear as to how the trip budget for the individual sites will be
apportioned.
Final version of the Transport Addendum evidence base has yet to be made available.
With very little parking currently available on the Core Site, objective a) of this policy cannot be applied to it; b) is
supported and we aim to go further than the number of parking spaces allocated in the draft AAP.
The current policy is wholly unrealistic in expectations as to the potential for reduction of existing parking and the
complex pattern of long-term leases in place on the Science Park in particular.