Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Search representations
Results for Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group search
New searchObject
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167296
Received: 12/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.
The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.
However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.
I am a member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse owner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.
The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.
However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.
Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:
1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.
2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).
3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.
The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.
4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.
With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.
This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167297
Received: 12/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Objection to impacts on horse riding routes / access
We object to the obstruction by default of intense buildings and vehicular traffic, of the ancient and important equestrian access route at Bannold and Cross Drove
I am a member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse owner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.
The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.
However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.
Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:
1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.
2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).
3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.
The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.
4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.
With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.
This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167474
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
1. INTRODUCTION
The SPD has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out which mean that we recommend non-adoption of it as submitted.
We are gravely concerned that the SPD has been drafted and determined before the Local
plan was adopted. This makes it impossible for the local plan Inspector's recommendations and modifications to be adopted in the SPD. We have read the inspectors report on Policy SS/5 Waterbeach New Town in the Local Plan and have found many omissions of comments within the SPD.
Concerning to read the comments and issues raised by committee regarding the content of the SPD and lack of time for councillors ( 5 days before the meeting) to be able to make informed judgement.
Letters from the EA, Heritage England and Natural England. Although the council believe that their concerns have been dealt with through the local plan process the EA, Heritage England and Natural England clearly state that additional information has since come to light.
The lack of fair and proper consultation. No direct notification of residents. Bearing in mind all of the above we urge SCDC to consider recalling the current public consultation until it can be proven that the public have all the facts.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167475
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
2.4 Landscape, Ecology & Water
Policy SS/5 states that the proposed new settlement should reflect surrounding fenland towns in design. The concept of the new design could be warranted in a different (e.g. city/urban) landscape but it is not acceptable on the Fen edge and Fen edge villages of Waterbeach and Chittering which will be dwarfed by the proposed new town. Absolutely no creative thought has been provided. Does not reflect the architecture of the existing village or surrounding fen edge villages.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167476
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
Heights of up to thirty-metre-high blocks) (being proposed by both developers) cannot be mitigated in the low-lying fens to the North, East and South of the site.. The sightlines chosen by SCDC do not reflect the topography of the land to the East and North and South of the site and should be revised. 3D impressions are also much needed please for general public to understand the density of built form: it is very hard to comprehend this with simple wire lines and illustrations.
Both the urban design and building heights will permanently change and interrupt the characteristic long views, big skies and tranquillity of the fens. The SPD must contain height restrictions that reflect surrounding existing architecture and protect the views from and to Denny Abbey. Without this the SPD is not fit for purpose in directing any development that happens north of Waterbeach.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167477
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Although two access points onto the A10 are described, the southern point is not known. More detail is needed to assess the effect of increased vehicular use of the A10, the A14 interchange at Milton and access to Cambridge or the likelihood of traffic diverting through secondary roads such as the B1047 to reach east Cambridge and the ring road, Landbeach Road and Ely Road, Milton and knock on effects at Horningsea too. Entry and exit to private vehicles should only be from DUALLED A10. Currently there is a risk of making rat-runs.
Additional physical measures are required: Clayhithe and Horningsea to prevent drivers turning off the A10 at Car Dyke Road to use the B1047 to travel south and east; within Waterbeach to prevent access onto the B1047
Public transport route not described and funding not guaranteed.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167478
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
5.7 PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE & PLANTING
We have been promised many times over by developers and SCDC that there would be a
designated space between the village and the proposed development. The unique Fenland is worth preserving.
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167479
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This development and the combined developments of Urban and Civic and RLWE will
produce enormous amounts of household, commercial and building and demolition waste.
The SPD must contain restrictions on the building of anything except the EU's top 3 energy from waste solutions.
We note also that there is no provision for an area air quality management plan. The SPD must include the need NOW for an AQMA and management plan. The SPD as it currently stands, underestimates (totally ignores in fact) the impact on air quality from the numerous sources that will contribute during the build and long term.
The SPD fails to mention how the planned new town will help achieve the new City and County Air Quality Action Plans or the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy or support the Milton AQMAP
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167480
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
GREENWAYS AND CORRIDORS
The SPD is premature in the absence of a coordinated approach for the whole development site across both land ownerships. The SPD must agree first:
-Retention of woodland west of the lake
-Safeguarding of land for special school
-Revision of primary school and special school locations away from the A10 and areas of high air pollution
-Impacts to Wicken Fen
-Ecological assessments (bat, hedgehog, birds and hedgerows)
-Revised flood and drainage risk assessments
-Update of green infrastructure- there is now much need for biodiversity given the hundreds of houses that have been built in the last few years in Waterbeach on greenfield.
Collaborative work with wildlife organisations and the national trust to ensure biodiversity is
maximised within the SPD blue print:
Object
Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document
Waterbeach New Town SPD
Representation ID: 167481
Received: 26/10/2018
Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group
4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
SPD is also non-specific enough about the limits of housing numbers Housing available on the Waterbeach development would be attractive to new employees at the distant employment sites resulting in increased travel.
A large amount of high-rise buildings will be necessary to facilitate the delivery of 6500 homes. This would be unacceptable as it is out of character for the area totally at odds with nearby settlements.
The height of the lakeside buildings (up to six storeys with some up to eight/ 30m) is not in
keeping with the surrounding area, the conservation area and vernacular of Waterbeach village, the listed buildings of Landbeach or the historic buildings of Denny Abbey.
