Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Developers need to look at and take note of the adequacy of the PROW network at the outset and the Plan needs to assess where there are shortfalls for the existing population as well as growth areas. There needs to be a footpath and bridleway network plan for leisure - not utility ‘active travel’ alone. Without this Policy I/ST is of little value as planners cannot challenge any shortfalls in the proposals that developers submit.

My concern is the exclusion of walking in the countryside as a recreational activity in Chapter 6, Wellbeing and social inclusion. Policy WS/CF makes no reference to the evidenced benefits of walking for both physical and mental health wellbeing. And the main infrastructure required for enjoyable, leisure walking is the public rights of way network. The network is mainly soft surface, close to and amongst green infrastructure - but has shortcomings, because it is fragmented and there are some significant areas of housing which are cut off from access to public rights of way.

‘Active’ and ‘Recreational’ travel both need to be recognised and planned for. The latter requires a plan to improve the public footpath and bridleway network. Development plans must take account at the outset of the current PROW network and seek to ensure that both utilitarian and leisure off-road routes are provided. This means that a PROW network plan should be adopted. Without this requirement Policy I/ST is of little value as planners cannot compel developers to improve the PROW network.

Policy I/ST appears to be solely concerned with ‘active travel’ . This is restricted to utilitarian movement to work, school, the shops etc. It ignores recreational, leisure activities, especially walking. Yet national surveys show that in all rural areas, including South Cambs, people are more likely to be engaged in walking for recreational than ‘active travel’ purposes. Since 1991 the number of dogs owned in the UK has DOUBLED - and all require exercise. The benefits of recreational walking should be fully acknowledged and planned for.

Widen the boundaries significantly, both north to Riverside and west to include the entire ARU campus along both sides of East Road.

The boundaries of the Eastern Gate area are inappropriate. They fail to recognise the integrity of the Riverside neighbourhood area, which includes all streets from Riverside south, such as Abbey Road, Riverside, Priory, Saxon and Beche Roads, River Lane, and the CHS estate. But even more strange, there is no discussion of the ARU campus. The recent acquisition of the Mackays site on East Road suggests that a Master Plan is needed, either within or separate from the Eastern Gate.