Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 200201

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

Review the definition of Active travel. Currently Active travel does not provide adequately for pedestrians wanting to access the countryside and walk on natural surfaces. Active travel paths for urban walking and cycling are needed in addition to rights of way paths, not instead of them.

Comment

Representation ID: 200531

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

GI is included in the South Cambs Local Plan. It is included in the Cambridge Local Plan. GI is included in the District Design Guide. However, the definitions of GI are different within these documents. In some, rights of way are included as part of GI, in others, including this SPD, they are not.

It would be very easy to misinterpret GI as green rural public paths and conclude that the need to protect and enhance the rural rights of way network is covered under this heading. It is not. Can this section be revisited to clarify what is included in GI and the rights of way section.

Comment

Representation ID: 200532

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

Developments only ‘may’ create a need for publicly accessible routes on-site or to move in and out of the development and then only to link with existing pedestrian and cycle routes and the wider rights of way network! Equestrians cannot use pedestrian / cycle active travel routes therefore they are, once again excluded. This statement is highly discriminatory against those residents who want to use soft surface rights of way and not urban style sealed cycle and pedestrian paths. It fails to meet the requirements of the Cambridgeshire ROWIP and CPCA Transport Local Transport and Connectivity Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 200533

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

There is nothing in this SPD to encourage rurality into public realm design nor access to the countryside. There is an opportunity within the rights of way section to include the need for a rural peripheral restricted byway around developments and enhance the opportunities for residents. In fact, this is an opportunity for Cambridgeshire to create a policy to ensure that this happens. That concept is already supported by the Cambs ROWIP and NPPF 104.

Comment

Representation ID: 200534

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

The rights of way network forms part of the public highway infrastructure yet it is not even mentioned. There is also no reference to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

There is no recognition that equestrians are stated as equally vulnerable road users as cyclists in the Road User Hierarchy.

According to the Local Plan, Sustainable Travel includes the rights of way network and undertakes to protect and improve the amenity of these routes – that has to include for soft surface users not just walking and cycling. There is no indication of protection of this obligation within the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 200535

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

This SPD promotes urban style walking, cycling and wheeling opportunities from which horse riders are excluded but promotes off road access for these groups, often designed to bring cyclists on the inside of horse riders which is contrary to the highway code and impacts negatively on road safety for all users. There is opportunity within this SPD to correct the imbalance and improve the rights of way provision.