Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 209076

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Where level changes are required, ramped access should be the preferred solution. Shallow stepped routes may be acceptable only where they are accompanied by convenient accessible and oversized parking on the ground floor, or by lifts suitable for wheeling cycles in and out. Where a lift-only solution is proposed, a minimum of two suitably-sized, walk-in/walk-out lifts should be provided to ensure resilience.

Object

Representation ID: 209077

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Coherence remains one of the most consistent shortcomings in recent development. Routes may exist in theory, but are broken, diluted or overridden by other priorities on the ground.

Two case studies have been presented in the accompanying attachments where this shortcoming is clear and apparent.

We have to learn that public space and cycling work together, but segregation is required.

Object

Representation ID: 209078

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Directness and permeability (the ability to move easily through urban environments) are inseparable. Direct routes only exist where layouts are permeable, and permeability is the structural condition that allows walking and cycling to be convenient.

Across Greater Cambridge, walking and cycling routes are routinely diverted, interrupted or deprioritised, when motor traffic circulation is prioritised or due to unfounded safety concerns. The cumulative effect of these small decisions is profound. Each detour, signal delay or loss of priority
reduces the usefulness of the network and discourages everyday trips by foot or by cycle.

In places where cycling works well internationally, very high levels of convenience are achieved not through speed, but through directness and continuity. Minimal stopping, few barriers and consistent priority allow people to cover distance comfortably and predictably.

The accompanying representations provide various examples where permeability has only been encouraged rather than mandated has resulted in active travel infrastructure failures.

Object

Representation ID: 209079

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Active travel safety must be understood through two lenses. The first is actual safety. Too many developments prioritise vehicle capacity at site access points, resulting in oversized junctions that encourage excessive motor traffic speeds and form hostile barriers to walking and cycling. Junctions are the biggest risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

The second is perceived safety. Lighting remains a major weakness across the network. Important everyday routes remain unlit and solar studs (while a useful guidance solution) are presented as a substitute for lighting when they are not. The barrier this presents in particular to young adults and women is well known and researched but environmental concerns are frequently cited as reasons not to act, yet the environmental cost of journeys not made by bike and instead made by car is rarely
acknowledged. Sadly, in Cambridge many locations that are lit and only lit after a serious incident have occurred. We should not have to wait for a horrible assault or a collision before lighting is installed.

Object

Representation ID: 209080

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

For active travel infrastructure, comfort continues to be treated as optional rather than essential. Surface quality, width, drainage and maintenance remain points of dispute despite clear national guidance.

Poor surfacing and constrained widths disproportionately affect less confident users and those using non-standard cycles, directly undermining inclusive mode shift.
Comfort is not about luxury. It is about enabling predictable, smooth and accessible journeys for everyday use, across seasons and user types.

Object

Representation ID: 209081

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

One of Greater Cambridge’s greatest attributes for cycling is its ability to connect people to their destinations via green space and alongside water. Routes such as those across commons and along river corridors are not in conflict with nature but instead provide people with a powerful experience of nature everyday.

Development should build on this strength, treating cycling as a means of stitching together landscapes, communities and daily life. Two policies should be added to the Local Plan:

Policy 1: Active travel design principles
Potential draft policy: All development must be designed to support walking and cycling as the default choice for everyday journeys. Proposals will only be supported if they demonstrate compliance with the five active travel design principles.

Policy 2: Mandatory permeability
Potential draft policy: To ensure directness and convenience for walking and cycling, development proposals must meet minimum permeability standards based on site size. For example:
● Developments of up to 50 homes or equivalent floorspace must provide at least two direct outward walking and cycling connections to the surrounding area.
● Developments of 51 to 100 homes or equivalent floorspace must provide at least three direct outward connections, aligned to different cardinal compass directions.
● Developments of more than 100 homes or equivalent floorspace must provide direct outward connections in all four cardinal compass directions, unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this is physically impossible.

Object

Representation ID: 209082

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Cambridge Retail Park is one of the most car-dominated sites in the city, yet it sits between dense residential areas and along key walking and cycling desire lines. Its redevelopment is a critical opportunity to reduce short car trips and address fragmented networks.

The walking and cycling route linking the Equiano bridge on Riverside through the Retail Park to the Beehive Centre and into Petersfield is strategically important. It must be delivered as a protected, continuous and direct route suitable for everyday active travel trips. Recent revisions by the applicant move this route away from the shop fronts and bring this cycle route into conflict with large volumes of turning motor traffic, significantly weakening its effectiveness. This should not be supported.

The cycle alignment should be located on the opposite side of the carriageway from the car parks, closer to the shops, where it can remain legible, direct and separated from conflicted vehicle movements as much as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 209083

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan refers to improving permeability through the site, but does not explain how this will be achieved in a location defined by railway severance.

The Retail Park should safeguard land for a future pedestrian and cycle bridge to Coldham’s Common. This connection would transform access between the river corridor and the Common and establish a strategic foundation for future connectivity between the airport site and the wider eastern network.

Object

Representation ID: 209084

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In relation to our representations on Cambridge Retail Park, Policy S/AMC/BC should be amended to include:

● A requirement for a protected, continuous and direct cycle route through the site that avoids conflict with turning vehicles and aligns with strategic desire lines;
● A requirement to safeguard land and secure delivery mechanisms for a future pedestrian and cycle bridge across the railway to Coldham’s Common; and
● A requirement that permeability for walking and cycling is mandatory rather than encouraged, with multiple direct connections beyond the site boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 211762

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Camcycle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Camcycle has reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal
that accompanies the Plan and it clearly fails to reflect the transport-related carbon consequences of different spatial choices. In particular, it does not meaningfully distinguish between locations with fundamentally different potential for walking, cycling and public transport, and therefore risks treating very different places as broadly equivalent in sustainability terms.

The Sustainability Appraisal acknowledges that transport is a major contributor to emissions, but it does not robustly compare the lifetime transport impacts associated with dispersed, car-dependent growth versus compact, well-connected urban locations. Nor does it test credible alternative scenarios where land use, density, layout and connectivity are deliberately designed to maximise mode shift. This weakens the link between the Plan’s climate objectives and its spatial strategy and makes it harder to justify difficult but necessary choices.