Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Proposed modification
Modify Policy I/ST and its supporting text to make clear that:
“In applying criterion 2(b), existing Public Rights of Way should be identified by legal status and lawful users from the earliest stages of development and transport-infrastructure planning. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network. Opportunities to connect new routes with existing Public Rights of Way and the wider countryside-access network should be identified and secured. Improvements to existing Public Rights of Way should have regard to the legal status, function and lawful users of the route and should not inadvertently reduce the safety, connectivity or lawful use of existing routes. Where carriage-driving rights are intended to be provided, the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights. The fact that an existing rural Public Right of Way contributes to wider Active Travel connectivity should not, in itself, require a change to its surface, character or function.”

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy I/ST – Sustainable Transport and Connectivity
Policy I/ST – Sustainable Transport
Representation: Support with Modification
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
1. Representation
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the overall approach of Policy I/ST to improving sustainable transport, connectivity and travel choice. In particular, BHS welcomes the explicit reference in criterion 2(b) to “where appropriate, equestrian routes”, the requirement for strong and direct connections through adjoining areas, seamless connections to existing routes, and the recognition of gaps in the movement network, including the wider Rights of Way network.
The criterion also recognises the importance of connections between neighbourhoods, villages, towns, Cambridge, mobility hubs and the wider countryside, including opportunities for recreational and leisure movement.
This is a positive and important recognition of the role that equestrian routes can play within the wider connectivity network.
The BHS also welcomes the supporting text at paragraph 10.9, which recognises that:
• the Rights of Way network is an important asset;
• it provides access to the countryside;
• it is vital to the rural economy; and
• leisure routes should be improved in accordance with the Cambridgeshire County Council Rights of Way Improvements Plan.
These provisions provide a sound basis for recognising the wider countryside-access network within the Local Plan.
However, the policy and supporting text should provide greater clarity about how the Active Travel network and the wider Public Rights of Way (PROW) and countryside-access network are to be planned together, recognising that equestrians may need to use Active Travel routes as part of a wider journey connecting PROWs with settlements, mobility hubs, services and other destinations. In some circumstances, an appropriate Active Travel route may also provide a safer alternative to travelling on the highway, particularly where highway traffic flows, road conditions or other characteristics make on-road travel less suitable for equestrians. The availability of such routes should therefore be considered as part of the safety and connectivity of the wider equestrian network.
The BHS therefore seeks a targeted modification to the supporting text of Policy I/ST.
2. Relationship between Active Travel and the PROW network
Active Travel infrastructure is primarily intended to facilitate everyday journeys, whereas the PROW and wider countryside-access network has important recreational, health, wellbeing and countryside-access functions.
These different functions do not mean that the two networks should be planned separately. Development and transport infrastructure frequently affect both networks, and opportunities can arise to improve connectivity between them.
The Local Plan should therefore make clear that Active Travel and the wider PROW/countryside-access network should be planned and delivered alongside one another as distinct but complementary networks.
In particular, the legal status, function and lawful users of existing PROWs need to be understood from the earliest stages of transport and development planning.
A bridleway, for example, is not interchangeable with a footpath simply because both routes may contribute to wider walking and recreational connectivity. Similarly, a route which provides a useful connection for walking or cycling does not necessarily provide the rights required for horse riding or carriage driving.
The approach in criterion 2(b) provides a strong foundation for this distinction because it already recognises both equestrian routes and the wider Rights of Way network. The supporting text should reinforce that approach.
3. Equestrian use should be considered from the outset
The BHS considers that equestrian use should be considered from the outset in the planning and design of Active Travel routes.
The appropriate approach is not to require every Active Travel route to accommodate horses. Rather, equestrian use should be considered before a walking, wheeling or cycling-only solution is adopted, so that the opportunity for safe and practicable inclusion is not lost through early design decisions.
The BHS's established position is:
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.
This approach is consistent with the positive wording already contained in criterion 2(b). It would also give practical effect to the policy's objective of addressing gaps in the movement network and strengthening connections with the wider countryside.
Where equestrian use is excluded from a new route, the assessment should therefore consider not only the immediate design constraint but also where equestrians will travel instead and whether the alternative arrangement results in greater exposure to motor traffic, difficult crossings, severance or other safety problems.
4. Safety and the consequences of exclusion
The safety implications of inclusion or exclusion need to be considered for all relevant lawful users.
A transport intervention should not simply remove a conflict for one user group by transferring or increasing risk for another.
This is particularly important where new cycle infrastructure is provided alongside an existing highway used by horses.
If equestrians are excluded from a parallel cycle facility, horses may remain on the carriageway while cyclists use a facility immediately alongside them. Depending on the design, this can result in cyclists being positioned on the horse's left or inside.
The Highway Code's Rule 63 specifically addresses interactions between cyclists and horses and advises cyclists not to pass horses on their left. The design of new infrastructure should therefore take account of the particular safety consequences of the interaction between horses, cyclists and motor traffic.
The supporting text should therefore make clear that the consequences of inclusion and exclusion should be assessed as part of the transport and safety assessment.
5. Network connectivity, gaps and severance
The BHS supports criterion 2(b)'s requirement to address gaps in the movement network, including the wider Rights of Way network, and to strengthen connections between neighbourhoods, villages, towns, Cambridge, mobility hubs and the wider countryside.
The policy should ensure that this requirement is applied to the whole network rather than only to routes within an individual development site. Development and transport infrastructure can create severance or remove opportunities for connections beyond the site boundary if external links, crossings and legal status are not considered at the outset.
Strategic and site-specific transport planning should therefore identify existing PROWs, missing links, important crossings and opportunities to connect developments to the wider countryside-access network. Where a new connection is proposed, its intended lawful users and legal status should be established from the outset and protected through the relevant planning, legal and delivery mechanisms.
This should include opportunities for circular and recreational routes, connections between settlements and the countryside, and links to existing bridleways, restricted byways and other routes capable of supporting equestrian or carriage-driving use.
6. Public Rights of Way and the rural countryside-access network
The BHS welcomes paragraph 10.9's recognition that the Rights of Way network is an important asset, provides access to the countryside and is vital to the rural economy. This is an important acknowledgement of the wider function of the PROW network within the transport and countryside-access framework.
However, the Local Plan should make clear that existing Public Rights of Way should be considered as rights of way in their own right, rather than simply as components of the Active Travel network. Their legal status, function, character and lawful users should be identified and taken into account when development or transport infrastructure affects them.
Improvements to an existing PROW should therefore be appropriate to the legal status, function and characteristics of the route and its lawful users. An improvement should not be assumed to require a change in the route's surface, character or function merely because the route also contributes to wider walking, cycling or Active Travel connectivity.
In particular, the fact that an existing bridleway provides a connection within a wider Active Travel network should not, in itself, create an expectation that the bridleway should be converted to an urban-style or sealed surface. Where improvements are proposed, the appropriate treatment should be determined having regard to the existing route, its lawful users, its rural character, safety, accessibility, environmental considerations and the particular function that the improvement is intended to achieve.
The BHS supports opportunities to improve connectivity between Active Travel routes and the wider countryside-access network, but such connectivity should be achieved without unnecessarily changing the character or function of existing rural PROWs.
7. Rural character and surfacing
The distinction between Active Travel infrastructure and the wider PROW network is also important in relation to surfacing and rural character.
The BHS supports appropriate improvements to PROWs. However, improved accessibility should not automatically be equated with urbanisation or the introduction of sealed urban-style surfaces.
Rural PROWs can have important landscape, recreational and countryside-access functions, and natural or firm-natural surfaces may be appropriate to their location and function.
A sealed surface may nevertheless be appropriate where there is a clear reason for it, including where it provides a necessary safety, accessibility or connectivity benefit.
The policy should therefore avoid creating an assumption that rural recreational PROWs should be sealed simply because Active Travel improvements are being provided nearby.
This is particularly important where a new Active Travel route runs alongside, connects to or crosses an existing rural PROW.
8. Legal status and carriage driving
The policy should also maintain a clear distinction between the different legal categories of PROW.
In particular:
• a bridleway provides rights for walking, cycling and horse riding;
• a restricted byway includes carriage-driving rights; and
• a BOAT includes carriage-driving rights.
Carriage driving should therefore not be treated as synonymous with horse riding or described as a lawful use of a bridleway.
Where a new route is intended to provide carriage-driving rights, this should be considered separately from horse-riding provision and the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect the rights intended to be provided.
This is relevant to the Local Plan's wider objective of creating strong and direct connections and addressing gaps in the movement network. A route intended to provide a particular form of countryside access should have the legal status necessary to deliver that objective.
9. Relationship with the supporting transport framework
The I/ST should also be read alongside the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, which provides the wider regional policy context for considering equestrian needs alongside active travel and wider connectivity.
The supporting text at paragraphs 10.7–10.14 provides the wider context for Policy I/ST. The BHS supports the emphasis on genuine choice of travel modes, high-quality places designed around people, safe routes, whole-journey connectivity, mitigation of transport impacts and the provision of transport infrastructure and connectivity to address additional demand arising from development.
Paragraph 10.8 is particularly relevant because it recognises that routes through development should encourage active travel while not compromising access for groups with particular accessibility needs and other essential road users. This should be applied consistently where equestrian users and PROWs are affected.
Paragraph 10.9 should be strengthened to make the relationship between Active Travel infrastructure and the wider PROW network clearer. Recognition of the importance of the PROW network should be accompanied by a requirement to protect its legal status, lawful users, continuity, safety and appropriate rural character when transport or development proposals affect it.
Paragraph 10.11 adopts a whole-journey approach, including first- and last-mile connections and interchange between modes. This supports considering how Active Travel infrastructure connects with the wider PROW and countryside-access network, avoiding breaks or unsafe interfaces and identifying opportunities for safe and appropriate connections at an early stage.
Paragraph 10.14 also requires regard to the wider transport policy framework, including the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, Active Travel Strategy and emerging Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy. This reinforces the need for the Local Plan to establish a clear framework for the relationship between Active Travel infrastructure and the wider PROW and countryside-access network.
Paragraphs 10.12 and 10.13 should also be read as requiring transport impacts and infrastructure needs to be assessed in relation to the wider countryside-access network, including relevant PROW connections, crossings and missing links, rather than only the capacity and connectivity of walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.
10. Soundness
The BHS considers that Policy I/ST is broadly consistent with the Plan's objectives for sustainable transport and connectivity, but that greater clarity is required to ensure that the policy is effective in implementation and consistently applied through development and transport proposals.
Without this clarification, there is a risk that the positive reference to equestrian routes in criterion 2(b) and the recognition of the importance of the Rights of Way network in paragraph 10.9 will not be translated consistently into site-specific design, delivery and management decisions.
The modifications below would provide a clearer and more effective framework, while retaining the policy's overall approach to sustainable transport.
Proposed modification
BHS requests that Policy I/ST and its supporting text be modified to:
• make clear that Active Travel and the wider Public Rights of Way and countryside-access network are distinct but complementary networks, with different functions, legal statuses, lawful users, and design and surfacing requirements;
• require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network; where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, require equestrian use to be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably, unless a relevant site-specific constraint is identified and evidenced;
• require the consequences of proposed exclusion for equestrian safety, route continuity and the wider equestrian network to be assessed;
• make clear that existing PROWs are to be considered as rights of way in their own right, including their legal status, function, character and lawful users;
• ensure that improvements to existing rural PROWs are appropriate to the legal status, function, character and lawful users of the route and do not automatically imply conversion to an urban-style or sealed surface;
• require transport and development proposals to identify and safeguard existing PROWs, important crossings, missing links and opportunities to connect the development with the wider countryside-access network; and
• where carriage-driving access is intended, require the appropriate legal status and physical requirements to be considered and secured from the outset.
A suitable addition to the supporting text would be:
“In applying criterion 2(b), existing Public Rights of Way should be identified by legal status and lawful users from the earliest stages of development and transport-infrastructure planning. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network. Opportunities to connect new routes with existing Public Rights of Way and the wider countryside-access network should be identified and secured. Improvements to existing Public Rights of Way should have regard to the legal status, function and lawful users of the route and should not inadvertently reduce the safety, connectivity or lawful use of existing routes. Where carriage-driving rights are intended to be provided, the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights. The fact that an existing rural Public Right of Way contributes to wider Active Travel connectivity should not, in itself, require a change to its surface, character or function.”
Conclusion
The BHS supports Policy I/ST's overall approach to sustainable transport and connectivity, and particularly welcomes criterion 2(b)'s recognition of equestrian routes and the explicit recognition in paragraph 10.9 of the importance of the Rights of Way network and its role in the rural economy.
The policy should nevertheless be modified to provide a clear strategic framework for integrating Active Travel planning with the protection and enhancement of the wider PROW and countryside-access network. This should include early consideration of equestrian use, protection of legal status and lawful users, assessment of safety and network consequences, appropriate treatment of rural PROWs, and identification and delivery of missing links and wider countryside connections.
These modifications would make the policy more effective and provide greater certainty that its positive provisions for equestrian routes and the wider Rights of Way network are translated into development, transport and infrastructure delivery.
The British Horse Society | Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19 | Policy I/ST

Modify Policy BG/GI and its supporting text to make clear that Green Infrastructure should provide connected, multifunctional networks which support recreation, health and wellbeing as well as ecological objectives. Existing Public Rights of Way should be identified by legal status, function, character and lawful users from the earliest stages of planning. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing Green Infrastructure and development, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. New green corridors and countryside-access routes should, where safely and reasonably practicable, accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users. Where equestrian use is not proposed, relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraints should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safety and network connectivity. Improvements to rural PROWs should respect their legal status, function, character and lawful users and should not automatically require urban-style or sealed surfacing. Opportunities to connect new Green Infrastructure with existing PROWs and the wider countryside-access network should be identified and secured.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy BG/GI – Green Infrastructure
Representation: Support with Modification
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
1. Position
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports Policy BG/GI and its objective of creating a multifunctional, connected and responsibly managed green infrastructure network.
The BHS particularly supports the policy's emphasis on integrating green infrastructure into development at an early stage and on ensuring that green infrastructure is multifunctional and connected.
However, the policy should more clearly recognise the role of the existing and proposed Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access network as part of this multifunctional green infrastructure network.
Countryside access provides important recreational, health and wellbeing benefits and can contribute to connections between settlements and the wider countryside. Where routes carry equestrian rights, they also provide an important component of the wider countryside-access network.
The BHS therefore considers that Policy BG/GI and its supporting text should make clear that Green Infrastructure Plans should identify, protect and, where opportunities exist, enhance relevant countryside-access routes and their connectivity.
This should include consideration of:
• existing Public Rights of Way and their legal status;
• the lawful users of those routes;
• existing and potential equestrian connections;
• missing links and points of severance;
• connections between new green infrastructure, existing Rights of Way and the wider countryside;
• opportunities for new direct and circular countryside-access routes; and
• opportunities to enhance the accessibility and connectivity of the wider countryside-access network.
2. Green infrastructure should include countryside access as a network
The BHS considers that the concept of green infrastructure should not be limited to individual green spaces, habitats or landscape features.
The policy describes green infrastructure as a network. Where that network includes routes and corridors used by people, consideration should therefore extend to the existing and proposed countryside-access network and the connections between it.
Existing PROWs should be identified at the earliest stage of development and incorporated into the Green Infrastructure Plan. Their legal status and lawful users should be understood before the layout of green infrastructure is established.
This is particularly important where development creates new green corridors or where existing routes pass through, alongside or between development areas.
A green corridor which appears connected in landscape terms may nevertheless fail to provide meaningful countryside access if it does not connect with existing PROWs, settlements or the wider countryside.
Green Infrastructure Plans should therefore identify opportunities to address gaps and severance and to strengthen connections between existing routes and new green infrastructure.
3. Inclusive countryside access
The BHS considers that new green corridors and countryside-access routes should not default to footpath-only provision where a wider range of lawful non-motorised users can be accommodated.
Where a new Public Right of Way or other countryside-access route is proposed, its intended function and lawful users should be established from the outset.
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network.
Where inclusion is proposed to be excluded, the relevant physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, and the consequences for equestrian safety and wider network connectivity should be assessed.
This does not mean that every green corridor must accommodate every form of non-motorised use. It means that the potential for inclusive countryside access should be properly considered before a more restrictive route is adopted.
Where a route is intended to provide carriage-driving rights, this should be treated separately from horse-riding provision. The legal status and physical design of the route should reflect the rights intended to be provided.
4. Relationship with Active Travel
The BHS supports the principle that green infrastructure can provide connections for people as well as benefits for nature.
However, the Active Travel network and the PROW and wider countryside-access network have different functions and should remain distinct while being planned alongside one another.
The existence of an Active Travel route should not therefore be treated as removing the need to consider the wider countryside-access network.
Equally, improvements to green infrastructure or Active Travel infrastructure should not inadvertently reduce the safety, convenience or connectivity available to existing lawful users of PROWs.
Where the networks interact, Green Infrastructure Plans should identify opportunities for safe and convenient connections between them.
This approach would complement Policy I/ST while ensuring that BG/GI properly addresses the green infrastructure and countryside-access implications of development.
5. Legal status and lawful users
The BHS considers that Green Infrastructure Plans should identify the legal status and lawful users of existing PROWs affected by development.
A footpath, bridleway and restricted byway are not interchangeable simply because each may form part of a wider countryside-access network.
In particular, a bridleway does not provide carriage-driving rights. Where carriage driving is intended, the appropriate legal status should be secured and the physical design of the route should reflect those rights.
This distinction should be recognised when new green corridors are planned or existing routes are incorporated into green infrastructure.
6. Connectivity, missing links and severance
The BHS particularly supports the policy's requirement for green infrastructure to be connected.
This should include connectivity for the wider countryside-access network.
Green Infrastructure Plans should therefore identify, where relevant:
• existing PROWs;
• routes carrying equestrian rights;
• restricted byways and BOATs where carriage-driving access is relevant;
• missing links;
• severance caused by roads, railways or development;
• opportunities for safe crossings;
• connections to settlements;
• connections between development and the wider countryside; and
• opportunities to create direct or circular routes.
This would ensure that the policy's objective of creating a connected green infrastructure network is applied not only to ecological and landscape connections but also, where relevant, to the human access network.
7. Delivery, phasing and long-term management
The BHS supports the policy's requirement for Green Infrastructure Plans and long-term management arrangements.
The same principle should apply to countryside-access provision.
Green Infrastructure Plans should demonstrate how relevant existing Rights of Way and new countryside-access routes will be:
• protected;
• connected;
• delivered;
• appropriately phased; and
• maintained for their intended function and lawful users.
This is particularly important for strategic development, where green infrastructure and countryside-access provision may be delivered over many years.
Connectivity should not be left until later phases if earlier phases of development have already created barriers or severance.
Where a new route is intended to form part of a wider countryside-access network, its delivery should therefore be considered alongside the phasing and delivery of the development and associated infrastructure.
8. Soundness
The BHS considers that the requested modification is necessary to make Policy BG/GI more effective and justified and to support its consistency with national policy.
The modification would make the policy more effective by providing clearer requirements for identifying, protecting, connecting and managing the countryside-access component of green infrastructure.
It would make the policy more justified by ensuring that Green Infrastructure Plans are informed by the existing PROW network, its legal status and lawful users, and by identified gaps, severance and opportunities for enhancement.
It would also support consistency with national policy by ensuring that green infrastructure delivers multiple benefits for people and the environment and that existing rights of way and opportunities to improve access are properly considered as part of development planning.
The Council's Regulation 19 guidance confirms that policies must be justified, effective and consistent with national policy, and that representations should identify the modification required where a policy is not sound as drafted.
9. Proposed modification
The BHS requests that Policy BG/GI and its supporting text be amended to make clear that:
Green infrastructure should protect and enhance the existing Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access network and should strengthen connectivity between settlements and the wider countryside. Green Infrastructure Plans should identify existing Public Rights of Way, their legal status and lawful users, together with relevant missing links, severance and opportunities for enhancement and new provision.
The supporting text should also make clear that:
New green corridors and countryside-access routes should, wherever reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function, be planned to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful non-motorised users. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
And:
Where green infrastructure interacts with the Active Travel and wider countryside-access networks, opportunities for inclusive, safe and convenient connections should be identified and secured, while retaining the distinct functions, legal statuses and design requirements of the different networks.
10. Conclusion
The BHS supports the overall direction of Policy BG/GI and welcomes its emphasis on multifunctionality, connectivity, early integration into development and long-term management.
The requested modification does not seek to change the fundamental purpose of the policy.
Rather, it would ensure that the Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access network is properly recognised as one of the human-access components of a multifunctional green infrastructure network, alongside its environmental, landscape, recreational and health and wellbeing functions.
It would also ensure that existing routes and their lawful users are identified and protected, that gaps and severance are considered, and that opportunities to create connected and inclusive countryside-access routes are identified from the earliest stages of development.
The BHS therefore supports Policy BG/GI subject to the modifications set out above.

Modify Policy I/ID and its supporting text to require infrastructure planning and delivery to identify and safeguard existing Public Rights of Way by legal status and lawful users from the earliest stages of development planning. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where Active Travel infrastructure forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where equestrian use is not proposed, any relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access and network connectivity. Infrastructure requirements, funding, phasing and delivery mechanisms should secure necessary PROW and countryside-access connections and improvements alongside development. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the appropriate legal status and physical design should be secured from the outset.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy I/ID – Infrastructure and delivery
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification
1. Overall approach
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports Policy I/ID and, in particular, its recognition that infrastructure includes active travel routes, public rights of way and bridleways, as well as strategic and local green infrastructure. The policy also correctly requires necessary infrastructure to be coordinated, phased and secured in tandem with development.
The BHS considers that the policy should be strengthened to ensure that infrastructure delivery properly reflects the legal status, lawful users, safety and network function of Rights of Way and wider countryside-access provision.
2. Countryside access is infrastructure
The supporting text expressly identifies active travel routes, public rights of way and bridleways, and strategic and local green infrastructure as infrastructure. This is welcomed. The policy should make clear that where such infrastructure is required to make development acceptable, its delivery must provide an effective and connected network rather than isolated pieces of infrastructure.
Planning applications should therefore identify existing Rights of Way and relevant countryside-access routes, their legal status and lawful users, and demonstrate how development will protect, enhance and connect them.
3. Active Travel and equestrian inclusion
The Active Travel network and the PROW/countryside-access network have different purposes and should remain distinct while being planned alongside one another. However, the different purpose of Active Travel infrastructure does not justify the default exclusion of equestrians.
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.
This principle should inform the infrastructure requirements and planning obligations secured under Policy I/ID.
4. Legal status and carriage driving
The legal status of an existing or proposed route should reflect the public rights it is intended to provide. Horse riding and carriage driving should not be treated as interchangeable.
Where a route is intended to provide carriage-driving rights, carriage driving should be included and the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights. A bridleway should not be treated as an equivalent replacement for a route carrying carriage-driving rights.
5. Phasing, funding and delivery
The BHS strongly supports the requirement for infrastructure to be delivered in tandem with development. This should expressly include countryside-access infrastructure where it is necessary to maintain connectivity and safety, including the continuity of routes and connections beyond the development boundary.
For strategic developments, delivery mechanisms should identify the relevant infrastructure, funding source, trigger and responsible party. Where early phases would otherwise sever or compromise an existing route, necessary replacement or mitigation should be delivered before that harm occurs rather than being deferred to later phases.
This is particularly important where new development interacts with strategic infrastructure or existing Rights of Way extending beyond the development boundary, because early delivery decisions can otherwise create gaps, severance or unresolved external connections in the wider countryside-access network.
Proposed modification
The BHS requests that Policy I/ID and its supporting text be amended to make clear that:
Planning applications should identify existing Public Rights of Way and relevant wider countryside-access routes, their legal status and lawful users, and demonstrate how the development will protect, enhance and connect them as part of the wider network.
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.
Where a route is intended to provide carriage-driving rights, carriage driving should be included and the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights.
Countryside-access infrastructure required to make development acceptable should be appropriately phased, funded and secured so that connectivity and safety are maintained throughout development, including necessary external connections and measures to avoid severance during construction.
Conclusion
The BHS supports Policy I/ID subject to the modifications set out above. The requested changes would ensure that the Plan's recognition of Rights of Way, bridleways, byways, Active Travel routes and green infrastructure is translated into effective, safe and connected infrastructure delivery, consistent with the national requirement to protect and enhance the PROW network and take opportunities to extend, link and improve routes. They would also provide a clear mechanism for applying the Plan's strategic approach to equestrian inclusion at planning application and infrastructure-delivery stages.

BHS considers that Policy S/AMC/NEC should be modified to:
* require existing Public Rights of Way to be identified by legal status and lawful users at the earliest stage of planning and masterplanning;
* require the needs of horse riders to be considered when planning and designing development, infrastructure and movement networks, including safe and appropriate connections to the wider PROW and countryside-access network;
* ensure that where Active Travel infrastructure forms part of a connection serving the wider PROW network, equestrian use is accommodated where this can be achieved safely, with any exclusion supported by a relevant site-specific constraint and evidence;
* require new Green Infrastructure, green corridors and countryside-access routes to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable;
* identify and safeguard existing PROWs, important crossings, missing links and opportunities to connect NEC with the wider countryside-access network;
* ensure that infrastructure funding, phasing and masterplanning secure these connections alongside development and do not prejudice their future delivery; and
* require improvements to existing rural PROWs to respect their legal status, function, character and lawful users and not automatically result in urban-style or sealed surfacing.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy S/AMC/NEC – North East Cambridge Area of Major Change
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification
1. Introduction
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the objectives of Policy S/AMC/NEC in creating a well-connected, inclusive and sustainable new district. BHS does not express a view on whether the North East Cambridge allocation itself should proceed. This representation concerns the connectivity, Public Rights of Way (PROW), green infrastructure and countryside-access aspects of the policy.
North East Cambridge is an important strategic location for the wider network. Existing equestrian routes already serve the area, including the bridleway alongside the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, which connects towards St Ives and links with Mere Way. Equestrians also have access to Milton Country Park. The development therefore presents an opportunity to strengthen an existing network rather than treating equestrian access as a new or urban-only requirement.
2. A strategic green and countryside-access opportunity
The current policy requires an interconnected network of streets, parks, green corridors and water features, joined to the wider Green Infrastructure network, and identifies approximately 11.2 hectares of accessible green space as required to meet future residential and employment needs. It also requires joined-up and continuous Green Infrastructure between sites, phases and land ownerships.
This green infrastructure should be planned to provide more than isolated recreational spaces. The substantial green space to the east of North East Cambridge has the potential to provide routes through and around the development and to connect with the wider countryside. In the longer term, these connections could contribute to a much wider network towards Cambridge East.
The Waterbeach Greenway provides an important northern connection. Its off-road section between the A10 and Waterbeach is being delivered to include equestrians, and the Greenway provides a wider connection towards Milton and Milton Country Park. The existing Guided Busway bridleway provides another established equestrian spine. These routes should be considered together when planning North East Cambridge.
The objective should be to avoid creating a new urban development which becomes a barrier in an otherwise developing network. North East Cambridge should instead help connect Waterbeach, Milton, Milton Country Park, the Guided Busway bridleway, Mere Way and the wider countryside-access network.
3. The earlier NEC policy position
There is an important policy precedent within the preparation of the NEC plan. The earlier North East Cambridge Area Action Plan expressly stated that green links should connect to the wider countryside and Rights of Way network, that leisure routes should include provision for equestrians, and that the network included pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
The current Regulation 19 policy has retained the objective of creating a comprehensive, connected and inclusive movement network, but its operative movement provisions now refer principally to walking and cycling and do not expressly identify equestrian users. BHS considers that this is a material loss of clarity and should be corrected.
The change is particularly significant because the current policy requires new and improved connections across existing barriers, including the railway and Guided Busway, and connections to Milton and Fen Road. If these routes and crossings are designed only for pedestrians and cyclists, the opportunity to maintain and extend the existing equestrian network may be permanently lost.
4. Active Travel and the PROW network
BHS considers that the Active Travel network and the PROW and wider countryside-access network should remain distinct but complementary. Active Travel routes are primarily intended to facilitate everyday movement, whereas the PROW and wider countryside-access network provides recreational, leisure, health and wellbeing access to the countryside.
This distinction should not, however, be used to exclude equestrians from Active Travel infrastructure. Where an Active Travel route can provide a safe and useful connection for equestrians, inclusion should be considered from the outset. The same principle should apply to new and improved PROWs and wider countryside-access routes.
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, horse riding should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.
The objective is to secure continuous green, multi-user corridors and appropriate crossings which connect existing and emerging routes safely.
5. Railway and River crossings
The railway line and River Cam are significant physical barriers to the wider network. The policy and its supporting evidence already recognise the need to address severance and provide new crossings, including a new crossing of the railway to Chesterton Fen and connections towards the River Cam and surrounding green infrastructure.
Any new or improved crossing provided as part of the strategic non-motorised-user network should be designed from the outset to accommodate equestrians, including horse riders and carriage drivers, rather than being delivered as pedestrian/cycle-only infrastructure. A crossing which excludes equestrians can create a permanent break in the wider network even where high-quality routes exist on either side.
The same principle should apply to crossings of the Guided Busway and other physical barriers. Where a route is intended to form part of the wider non-motorised-user network, its design and legal status should enable continuity for the users who need to use that network.
6. Required policy modifications
BHS considers that Policy S/AMC/NEC should be strengthened as follows:
1. Green infrastructure and countryside access
Clarify Policies 14–16 so that the interconnected network of parks, green corridors and accessible green space is planned to provide continuous recreational and countryside-access routes and to connect with existing and potential PROW, bridleway and wider countryside-access networks.
2. Active Travel and equestrian inclusion
Amend Policy 17(6), which currently requires a direct, legible network for walking and cycling, so that routes forming part of the wider countryside-access network are planned with regard to their relevant lawful users. Add the following principle: “Equestrian use should be considered at the earliest stage in planning and design. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.”
3. PROW and Wider Countryside-Access Strategy
Require a site-wide PROW and Wider Countryside-Access Strategy as a distinct component of the coordinated masterplanning and movement framework. It should identify, safeguard and deliver existing, new and enhanced routes, including connections to the Guided Busway bridleway, Mere Way, Milton Country Park, Waterbeach Greenway, surrounding villages and the wider countryside, and should identify longer-term opportunities for network connections towards Cambridge East.
4. Strategic crossings
Amend Policy 19 so that new and improved crossings of the railway, Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, Milton Road and other strategic barriers are planned as part of the wider non-motorised-user network and are capable of accommodating the relevant lawful users, including equestrians where the crossing forms part of a route serving the wider countryside-access network. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights.
5. Connections beyond the site
Amend Policy 19 to make clear that connections to King’s Hedges, East Chesterton, Fen Road and Milton must also connect into the wider PROW and countryside-access network, rather than being treated solely as pedestrian and cycle connections.
Conclusion
North East Cambridge is not simply an urban development site. It occupies a strategically important position between existing and emerging green and countryside-access networks. The existing Guided Busway bridleway, Mere Way, Milton Country Park and Waterbeach Greenway demonstrate that equestrian access already forms part of the wider network.
The development and its associated green infrastructure provide an opportunity to connect these routes and, over time, contribute to a wider network towards Cambridge East. Conversely, if new routes and crossings are designed solely for pedestrians and cyclists, North East Cambridge could create a significant and lasting barrier to equestrian connectivity.
The fact that the development is urban does not remove the need for green, multi-user corridors. The purpose of the modification is not to require equestrians to use unsuitable urban roads, but to ensure that strategic green corridors, recreational routes and crossings are planned so that they can maintain and extend the wider network.
The earlier NEC Area Action Plan expressly recognised the need for equestrian provision. Restoring that clarity in the Regulation 19 Plan would ensure that North East Cambridge is planned as a genuinely connected and inclusive place and would be consistent with the Plan’s objectives for permeability, green infrastructure, recreation and health and wellbeing.
BHS therefore supports Policy S/AMC/NEC with the modifications set out above.

The BHS considers that Policy S/BA and its supporting text should be modified to:

require existing Public Rights of Way to be identified by legal status and lawful users at the earliest stage of planning and masterplanning;
require the needs of horse riders to be considered in the planning and design of development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate connections to the PROW and wider countryside-access network;
where Active Travel infrastructure forms part of a connection serving that wider network, require equestrian use to be accommodated where this can be achieved safely, with any exclusion supported by a relevant site-specific constraint and evidence;
require new rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function;
ensure that the legal status of new routes reflects their intended function and lawful users, including appropriate status where carriage-driving rights are intended;
identify and safeguard existing PROWs, important crossings, missing links and opportunities to connect the development with the wider countryside-access network; and
where relevant user groups cannot be accommodated, assess the consequences for safety and network connectivity and, where necessary, identify and secure safe, suitable and reasonably convenient alternatives.

BHS REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION
Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan 2024–2045
Policy S/BA: Bourn Airfield New Village
Representation: Support with Modification
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
1. Representation
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the policy's approach to movement and countryside access in Policy S/BA and the comprehensive planning of Bourn Airfield as a new village. The allocation provides an important opportunity to establish a well-connected settlement with a strong relationship to the surrounding countryside. This representation does not comment on whether the allocation itself should proceed.
The BHS considers, however, that the policy should be strengthened so that the Public Rights of Way (PROW) and wider countryside-access network, including equestrian access, are planned as an integral part of the village's movement and green infrastructure network rather than being treated as a secondary outcome of Active Travel or transport provision.
This is particularly important because S/BA already requires a comprehensive movement network for the whole village and access to the wider countryside, while its more specific movement requirements focus strongly on walking and cycling. The policy should make clear how those requirements relate to the wider PROW and countryside-access network and how equestrian access will be considered where appropriate.
The policy's supporting information identifies a comprehensive network of cycleways and footpaths within and beyond the site and the need for early provision of key routes. The policy itself also requires access to the wider countryside via footpaths and bridleways. The BHS considers that the Regulation 19 policy should translate these broad connectivity commitments into an explicit requirement for the existing and proposed equestrian network to be identified, protected and delivered alongside the wider movement and green infrastructure network.
2. Bourn Airfield should be planned as a connected countryside-access network
The principal issue is network connectivity. The Bourn Airfield allocation is not simply a collection of individual routes within a development site. Its internal routes need to connect with the existing rural network and remain effective as development is phased and as adjoining strategic infrastructure is delivered.
The policy should therefore require the site-wide movement and green infrastructure framework to identify existing and proposed PROWs and other relevant countryside-access routes, record their legal status and lawful users, identify gaps and severance, and establish how the network will remain connected through the full development period.
This approach is consistent with S/BA's requirement for a comprehensive movement network and with its objective of connecting the new village to the wider countryside. It also ensures that the development's significant proposed equestrian provision is considered as part of a network rather than as isolated bridleway sections.
3. The Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy provides a strong site-specific basis
The BHS welcomes the submitted Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026 (D3464-FAB-00-XX-PP-L-0012). The document is identified as a Planning Document and its issue sheet records P05, issued for planning on 23 July 2026. It should therefore be treated as important site-specific evidence when considering the detailed countryside-access requirements of S/BA. (Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026, issue sheet.)
The Strategy identifies that the surrounding bridleway network is fragmented, particularly for horse riders, and proposes a more legible and continuous network through the site. It identifies three interwoven routes – the Airfield Loop, Country Park Loop and Highfields Loop – and explains how they connect to the wider rights of way network. (Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026, pp. 9–10.)
It also recognises horse riders and carriage drivers where appropriate, alongside walkers and cyclists, and proposes a Rural Hub with potential horse-box and limited carriage parking, mounting blocks, watering points and hitching rails. The Strategy separately considers requirements for routes expected to accommodate horse-drawn vehicles. (Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026, p. 8.)
The BHS considers this substantial provision to be a positive feature of the allocation. The objective should therefore be to secure and deliver what is already proposed, not to place unrelated additional requirements on the Bourn Airfield developer to remedy strategic deficiencies elsewhere.
4. Consideration of equestrian access on Active Travel routes
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage in planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely and reasonably. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for equestrian safety and the wider network.
This does not require every Active Travel route to accommodate horses, nor does it require every route to have an equestrian-standard surface or the same legal status. It does require the intended function, lawful users and network consequences of each route to be considered at the appropriate planning and design stage.
Where equestrians cannot safely use a proposed Active Travel facility, the assessment should identify where they will travel instead and demonstrate that the resulting route is safe, suitable and reasonably convenient. A safety intervention should not simply transfer or increase risk for another group of lawful users.
5. New countryside-access provision should be inclusive by design
The BHS considers that Bourn Airfield provides an opportunity to establish a genuinely comprehensive countryside-access network rather than simply a conventional pattern of footpaths supplemented by separate walking and cycling infrastructure.
New rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes should, wherever reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function, be designed and established to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users, including walkers, cyclists and horse riders and, where appropriate, carriage drivers.
The legal status of each new route should reflect its intended function and lawful users. Where a route can safely and reasonably accommodate additional lawful users, it should not be restricted to fewer user groups without a clear, site-specific and evidence-based reason. This does not mean that every route should have the same legal status or accommodate every category of user. Where carriage-driving rights are appropriate, these should be secured through an appropriate route status; a bridleway should not be presented as providing carriage-driving rights.
Where one or more relevant user groups cannot be accommodated, the reason should be clearly identified and evidenced, with the consequences for the wider network assessed. Where exclusion would create a significant gap or severance, a safe, suitable and reasonably convenient alternative should be identified and secured.
6. Strategic connections beyond the Bourn Airfield site
The BHS is not asking the Bourn Airfield developer to solve strategic connectivity problems created elsewhere. The purpose of S/BA should instead be to ensure that the substantial network created through the allocation is not left functionally isolated by unresolved external infrastructure decisions.
Two strategic connections are particularly important.
Western C2C connection. The western end of the Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) scheme currently leaves an unresolved equestrian connectivity issue for the wider network towards Bourn Airfield. The BHS considers that this should be resolved through the appropriate strategic planning and infrastructure processes rather than simply identified as a future opportunity or transferred to the Bourn Airfield developer.
Byway 142/7 and the EWR/A428 interface. Byway 142/7 carries carriage-driving rights and is therefore an important higher-rights connection. Its safe and convenient connection south of the A428/Bourn area remains an issue in the context of East West Rail. Strategic infrastructure should not sever the Bourn Airfield countryside-access network from this wider route. Where existing rights cannot be retained, an alternative should preserve the relevant lawful rights; a new footpath is not an equivalent substitute for an equestrian or carriage-driving connection.
These matters reinforce the need for S/BA to require the Bourn Airfield network to be planned in the context of the wider countryside-access network, while avoiding any implication that the development should fund or deliver infrastructure for which it is not responsible.
7. Delivery, phasing and stewardship
The Bridleway Links Strategy provides a useful basis for delivery because it sets out phased implementation, including progressive delivery of the internal and perimeter connections and completion of the bridleway connections by Year 5/2031. (Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026, p. 14.)
S/BA should ensure that the countryside-access network is brought within the same delivery framework as the wider movement and green infrastructure network. This should include:
• protection of the proposed bridleway routes and key connection points through the masterplan, design codes and reserved matters;
• phasing which prevents early development from severing or frustrating routes required for the completed network;
• coordination of internal routes and external connection points with adjoining development and strategic infrastructure;
• appropriate long-term management and maintenance arrangements for countryside-access infrastructure; and
• continued engagement with local equestrian and other PROW users at detailed design and implementation stages.
The Strategy's targeted engagement with local riding groups and regular users of the surrounding rights of way network is particularly welcome. It identified gaps, discontinuities, route choices, important outward links, crossings and equestrian-friendly design measures, providing a strong basis for continued user-informed delivery. (Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026, p. 13.)
8. Proposed modification to Policy S/BA
The BHS requests that Policy S/BA includes the following strategic requirement:
“The comprehensive movement and green infrastructure network must identify, protect and deliver the existing and proposed Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access network within and adjoining the site, having regard to the legal status and lawful users of individual routes.
“The Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy, Version 5, July 2026 (D3464-FAB-00-XX-PP-L-0012), should inform the delivery of this network. The proposed Airfield Loop, Country Park Loop, Highfields Loop and associated connections should be retained and delivered as part of the development's green infrastructure and countryside-access provision.
“The countryside-access network should be planned alongside the Active Travel network as a distinct but complementary network. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage in planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for equestrian safety and the wider network. and the consequences for the wider equestrian network should be assessed.
“New rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes should, wherever reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function, be designed and established to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant non-motorised users, including walking, wheeling, cycling and horse riding and, where appropriate, carriage driving. There should be a presumption in favour of the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where a route can safely and reasonably accommodate them, rather than restricting a route to fewer user groups without a clear site-specific and evidence-based reason. Where one or more user groups cannot be accommodated, this should be supported by a clear, site-specific and evidence-based reason, and the consequences for the wider network should be assessed.
“The assessment and design of new transport, green infrastructure and strategic connections must consider existing and potential network connectivity, including gaps, severance, crossings and connections to the surrounding countryside and settlements. Strategic infrastructure affecting the wider network, including the western C2C connection and the EWR/A428 interface, should not leave the Bourn Airfield countryside-access network disconnected or sever existing lawful rights. Where carriage-driving rights are appropriate, these should be considered separately from horse-riding provision and the legal status of the route should reflect the rights intended to be provided.”
9. Soundness
The requested modification would make Policy S/BA more effective because it would translate the policy's commitment to a comprehensive movement network and access to the wider countryside into a clear requirement to plan and deliver the countryside-access network as a connected system.
It would also make the policy more consistent with national policy concerning the protection and enhancement of Public Rights of Way and opportunities to extend, link and improve existing routes. The submitted Bourn Airfield Strategy demonstrates that this can be achieved positively through network design, circular routes, supporting facilities, user engagement and phased delivery.
The modification is proportionate. It does not require every Active Travel facility to accommodate horses, prescribe a particular surface or design, or require every countryside-access route to have the same legal status. Instead, it establishes a presumption in favour of equestrian inclusion where appropriate, while requiring any exclusion to be supported by a clear, site-specific and evidence-based reason.
It also avoids placing disproportionate responsibility on the Bourn Airfield developer for strategic infrastructure problems outside the allocation, while ensuring that the Local Plan addresses the network consequences of those strategic decisions.
10. Conclusion
The BHS supports Policy S/BA subject to modification.
Bourn Airfield is an important opportunity to deliver a well-connected new village and a substantial countryside-access network. The submitted Bridleway Links Strategy provides a strong and welcome basis for that provision and should be secured through the Local Plan and subsequent delivery mechanisms.
The policy should, however, require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network. It should also require the wider countryside-access network to be planned alongside Active Travel as a distinct but complementary network.
The BHS is not asking Bourn Airfield to solve problems created elsewhere. Rather, S/BA should secure the substantial provision already proposed and ensure that strategic connectivity – particularly the western C2C connection and the connection towards Byway 142/7 in the context of EWR/A428 – is addressed through the appropriate strategic processes so that the new network is not left disconnected.

The BHS considers that Policy S/CB and its supporting text should be modified to:

require existing Public Rights of Way to be identified by legal status and lawful users at the earliest stage of planning and masterplanning, with their continuity, safety and function protected;
require Active Travel routes to be planned to provide safe and appropriate connectivity for their intended users while recognising their relationship with the wider PROW and countryside-access network;
require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network;
require equestrian use to be accommodated where this can be achieved safely, with any exclusion supported by a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint and evidence;
require new rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function;
identify and safeguard existing PROWs, important crossings, missing links and opportunities to connect Cambourne with the wider countryside-access network; and
ensure that necessary PROW and countryside-access connections are secured through masterplanning, infrastructure delivery, funding and phasing.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy S/CB – Cambourne
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification
1. Introduction
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the policy's approach to connectivity and access. The policy recognises the importance of connectivity between Cambourne, Cambourne North, the railway station and surrounding settlements, including the requirement for safe, convenient and seamless links associated with the A428. This representation does not comment on whether the allocation itself should proceed.
BHS considers, however, that the policy should more clearly recognise the existing Public Rights of Way (PROW) and wider countryside-access network as part of Cambourne’s long-term connectivity.
The supporting information for Policy S/CB is particularly helpful in identifying opportunities to safeguard existing Public Rights of Way and enhance them where necessary. It also states that active travel connections should be accessible for all users, with provision in appropriate locations for equestrians linking to the existing active travel network beyond the site. BHS considers that these commitments should be reflected in the operative policy requirements so that they are carried through into the delivery of the development.
2. Existing PROW and countryside-access network
Policy S/CB should require the existing PROW and wider countryside-access network within and adjoining Cambourne to be identified and protected as development and strategic infrastructure come forward. The legal status and lawful users of individual routes should be understood, rather than treating the wider network simply as generic Active Travel infrastructure.
Active Travel and the PROW/countryside-access network are distinct but complementary networks. Their different functions, legal statuses and lawful users should be recognised, and development of one network should not unintentionally sever, degrade or make less safe the other.
3. A428 connections and network continuity
The A428 is a major barrier to movement. The policy’s requirement for safe, convenient and seamless links should therefore be applied to the lawful users of the routes being connected.
The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where a proposed Active Travel route forms part of a connection serving that wider network, equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network. This does not require every Active Travel route to be designed or surfaced to equestrian standards.
4. Network planning and delivery
The policy should require connectivity to be considered at network level, including links between Cambourne, Bourn, Cambourne North, the station, surrounding settlements and the wider countryside. Phasing should ensure that individual development or infrastructure stages do not leave routes severed or connections unusable.
Proposed modification
Amend Policy S/CB to require the identification, protection and enhancement, where necessary, of existing PROWs and the wider countryside-access network within and adjoining Cambourne, having regard to their legal status and lawful users, and to ensure that active travel connections are accessible to relevant lawful users, with equestrian provision in appropriate locations where routes form part of the wider countryside-access network.
Clarify that the strategic A428 connections and other Active Travel infrastructure should be planned alongside the wider PROW/countryside-access network as distinct but complementary networks. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure, including the potential for safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Equestrian use should be accommodated where this can be achieved safely. Where it is not proposed, the relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider network.
Conclusion
BHS supports Policy S/CB subject to these modifications. The changes would ensure that Cambourne’s existing countryside-access network is treated as part of the settlement’s long-term connectivity and that the interaction between Active Travel, strategic infrastructure and equestrian access is addressed at the appropriate strategic stage.

Policy S/CBC should be modified to:

Require the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to be integrated with the existing and emerging Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access network, recognising this as a distinct but complementary network to Active Travel.
Require the Campus-wide Masterplan to identify, safeguard and facilitate a safe off-road equestrian connection from the Granham’s Road area through or around the eastern side of the Campus towards Babraham Road and the emerging countryside-access network, protecting the land and route corridor needed for its future delivery.
Require the Masterplan to identify opportunities for wider countryside-access connections towards Haverhill Road, Stapleford, the Beechwoods, Wandlebury and the wider Gog Magog countryside, including direct and circular recreational routes.
Require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is excluded, the constraint and its consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced.
Require the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy to identify the land, responsibilities, funding mechanisms and delivery triggers necessary to secure the timely delivery of strategic PROW and wider countryside-access connections, including routes that need to be safeguarded for future implementation. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy S/CBC – Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s Hospital)
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification

1. Introduction
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the policy’s objectives for improved green infrastructure, connectivity and coordinated infrastructure delivery. This representation addresses only matters relevant to Public Rights of Way (PROW), wider countryside access and equestrian connectivity; it does not comment on whether the allocation itself should proceed.
2. A strategic countryside-access network is emerging
The Campus sits within an emerging network of existing, committed and potential countryside-access routes, including the CSET equestrian route, Bridleway 212/2, the new Stapleford Country Park equestrian provision, the Sawston Greenway, the Babraham Road development bridleway and existing/permissive routes towards the Beechwoods and wider countryside. These should be planned as a connected system rather than as separate schemes.
3. The Granham’s Road connection must be safeguarded
The CSET Statement of Case currently proposes an equestrian bridleway between Granham’s Road and High Street, Babraham, but terminates the route at Granham’s Road. The BHS will continue to challenge this termination through the CSET process. The CBC Local Plan should not, however, assume that CSET will provide the missing onward connection: the CSET documentation does not identify a CBC delivery obligation, trigger or timescale for doing so.
The Sawston Greenway provides an important opportunity to contribute to this connection. Its project documentation has expressly contemplated equestrian provision, including a grass verge for equestrians alongside the Genome Path and an improved crossing at Granham’s Road. However, the current evidence does not establish that continuous equestrian provision throughout the CBC–Granham’s Road section is secured for delivery. The CBC policy should therefore safeguard the connection independently of the final outcome of either project.
4. Preferred connection around the eastern side of the Campus
The BHS is not seeking to route equestrians through the Campus along the CSET busway. The preferred opportunity is for a safe off-road connection from the Granham’s Road area through or around the eastern side of the Campus towards the green fields east of the Campus, Babraham Road and the emerging bridleway and wider countryside-access network. This would connect with routes towards the Beechwoods and, in the longer term, opportunities towards Wandlebury and the wider Gog Magog countryside.
This is the type of strategic link that should be protected while the Campus is masterplanned. Once land is developed, an otherwise feasible countryside-access connection could be sterilised.

5. PROW and Active Travel are distinct but complementary
The policy appropriately promotes walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport. These modes should not, however, be treated as a substitute for the wider PROW and countryside-access network, which has distinct functions, legal statuses and lawful users. The policy should therefore recognise the PROW and wider countryside-access network as a distinct but complementary network to Active Travel. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the wider network. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, that constraint should be identified and evidenced, together with the consequences for safe access and network connectivity.

6. Previous Council support for PROW and equestrian access
The BHS previously made representations on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD seeking protection and enhancement of Public Rights of Way and safe off-road access to surrounding countryside and amenities. The published response to that consultation records that the Councils recognised the role of the equestrian industry and acknowledged the importance of safe, off-road access to Public Rights of Way. The Councils proposed modifications to the SPD to include reference to PROWs on and surrounding the Campus and to introduce a development principle requiring “safe access through Public Rights of Way for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians to surrounding adjoining countryside and amenities”.
The BHS considers that this previous recognition of the importance of equestrian access is relevant to the current S/CBC policy. The provision should not be lost as the policy framework is updated. The current Plan should carry forward the principle of safe equestrian connectivity through the Campus and to the surrounding countryside-access network, with appropriate routes safeguarded and secured through the Masterplan and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy.

7. Masterplanning and infrastructure delivery
The policy already requires a comprehensive Masterplan and an Infrastructure Delivery Strategy, including funding, delivery mechanisms and appropriate triggers. These provide the appropriate mechanisms to secure the missing countryside-access links. The Masterplan should identify existing, permissive, committed and potential routes, while the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy should identify land, responsibilities, funding and delivery triggers needed to protect and implement them.

Proposed modification
A. Strategic countryside-access network. Add a requirement to ensure that the Campus is integrated with the existing and emerging PROW and wider countryside-access network, recognising this as a distinct but complementary network to the Active Travel network.
B. Safeguarding the Granham’s Road connection. Require the Campus-wide Masterplan to identify, safeguard and facilitate a safe off-road equestrian connection from the Granham’s Road area through or around the eastern side of the Campus towards Babraham Road and the emerging countryside-access network. Land and route corridors required for future connections should be protected from development that would prejudice their delivery.
C. Wider network connections. Require the Masterplan to identify opportunities to connect the Campus with existing and emerging countryside-access routes towards Haverhill Road, Stapleford, the Beechwoods, Wandlebury and the wider Gog Magog countryside, including opportunities for direct and circular recreational routes.
D. Equestrian access and Active Travel. Require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the constraint and the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced. This does not require every Active Travel route to accommodate horses or have an equestrian-standard surface. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
E. Delivery. Require the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy to identify land ownership, delivery responsibilities, funding mechanisms and appropriate triggers for the timely delivery of strategic PROW and wider countryside-access connections, including links that cannot be delivered immediately but need to be safeguarded for future implementation.

Conclusion
The BHS supports Policy S/CBC with modification. The policy provides an important opportunity to secure a coherent and connected countryside-access network around the Biomedical Campus, building on the Councils’ previous recognition of the importance of safe access through Public Rights of Way for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians to the surrounding countryside and amenities. That commitment should be carried forward into the Local Plan and secured through the S/CBC Masterplan and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy. The policy should safeguard the strategic connection from the Granham’s Road area, protect future route corridors and establish clear delivery mechanisms for these connections. It should also recognise the PROW and wider countryside-access network as distinct but complementary to the Active Travel network and ensure that the needs of horse riders are properly considered at the earliest stage of planning and design.

The BHS requests that Policy S/CBN be modified to require:

existing Public Rights of Way and relevant countryside-access routes to be identified at an early stage, including their legal status and lawful users, with their continuity, safety and function protected;
new rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes to accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function;
the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design, with Active Travel provision accommodating equestrian use where it can safely do so unless a clear, site-specific and evidenced constraint justifies exclusion;
the consequences of excluding equestrians or other lawful users for safety and wider network connectivity to be assessed, with suitable alternatives secured where necessary;
the A428, East West Rail, C2C and other strategic infrastructure to protect existing connections, avoid severance and identify opportunities to improve or extend the wider countryside-access network, including appropriate opportunities for equestrian-inclusive provision alongside EWR;
the EWR station and associated infrastructure to be planned so that they do not become a barrier to the continuity of the wider countryside-access network; and
masterplanning, funding, phasing, responsibilities and delivery triggers to be established early enough to secure these connections throughout the development.

BHS REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION
Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan 2024–2045
Policy S/CBN: Cambourne North
Representation: Support with Modification
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
1. Representation
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the policy's approach to movement and countryside access in Policy S/CBN and the comprehensive planning of Cambourne North as an integrated extension of Cambourne. The scale of the allocation, at approximately 13,000 homes and 108,000 square metres of employment floorspace, together with the proposed East West Rail station and Cambourne to Cambridge Guided Busway, makes this a particularly important opportunity to plan a coherent movement and countryside-access network from the outset. This representation does not comment on whether the allocation itself should proceed.
The BHS considers, however, that the policy should be strengthened so that the Public Rights of Way (PROW) and wider countryside-access network is planned as an integral part of the new settlement, rather than being treated as a secondary outcome of Active Travel or transport provision.
2. Cambourne North must be planned as a network, not as a collection of routes
The principal concern is cumulative network connectivity. A development of this scale will introduce roads, rail infrastructure, the A428 interface, the new station, the C2C corridor, neighbourhood centres, schools, employment areas and extensive green infrastructure. Individual routes may appear acceptable when considered in isolation, while their combined effect can nevertheless create severance or remove important links within the wider countryside-access network.
The site-wide Masterplan and Transport Strategy should therefore identify existing and proposed PROWs and other relevant countryside-access routes at an early stage, record their legal status and lawful users, identify gaps and severance, and establish how the network will remain connected as successive phases are delivered.
This is consistent with the BHS's wider position that the Active Travel and PROW/countryside-access networks are distinct but complementary networks. Planning one should not inadvertently weaken the other.
The Council's supporting information is significant because it expressly identifies opportunities to safeguard existing Public Rights of Way and enhance them where necessary. It also states that active travel connections should be accessible for all users and that provision should be made in appropriate locations for equestrians, providing links to the existing active travel network beyond the site. The operative policy currently focuses its movement requirement on walking and cycling; the BHS considers that this omission should be corrected at Regulation 19 stage so that the policy and supporting information are aligned.
3. New countryside-access provision should be inclusive by design
The BHS considers that the scale of Cambourne North provides an opportunity to establish a genuinely comprehensive countryside-access network rather than simply reproducing a conventional pattern of footpaths supplemented by separate walking and cycling infrastructure.
New rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes should accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function. The needs of equestrians should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the wider countryside-access network. Where one or more user groups cannot be accommodated, this should be supported by a clear, site-specific and evidence-based reason, with the consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider network assessed. Where exclusion would create a significant gap or severance, a safe, suitable and reasonably convenient alternative should be identified and secured.
This does not mean that every route should have the same legal status or accommodate every category of user. The legal status of each new route should properly reflect its intended function and lawful users. In particular, where carriage-driving rights are appropriate, these should be secured through an appropriate route status; a bridleway should not be presented as providing carriage-driving rights.
4. Safety consequences of excluding equestrians
The safety consequences of excluding equestrians from an Active Travel or shared route should be assessed explicitly. Providing a walking and cycling facility does not necessarily improve overall safety if equestrians are required to remain on an adjacent carriageway or use another route. The assessment should consider how horses, cyclists and motor traffic will interact both on the proposed facility and on the routes that excluded users would otherwise have to use. A safety intervention should not simply transfer or increase risk for another group of lawful users. Where equestrians cannot safely use the proposed facility, the assessment should identify where they will travel instead and demonstrate that the resulting route is safe, suitable and reasonably convenient.
5. Equestrian provision and network connectivity
The BHS welcomes the recognition in earlier policy material that appropriate provision should be made for equestrians and that connections to the existing network beyond the site are important. The Regulation 19 policy should retain and strengthen this principle. The needs of equestrians should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the constraint and the consequences for safe access to and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced.
Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
6. Major development should create an enhanced countryside-access network
The Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy provides a useful local example of how a major development can create a more legible and continuous countryside-access network. It identifies existing network gaps and proposes connected circulation routes linking the development with established bridleway circuits and the wider countryside. The strategy considers horse riders and, where appropriate, carriage drivers alongside other recreational users, while recognising the different requirements of individual routes. It also demonstrates the value of user-informed planning and supporting facilities as part of a functional countryside-access network.
Importantly, the Bourn strategy goes beyond simply protecting existing rights of way. Its Airfield Loop, Country Park Loop and Highfields Loop provide connected routes through and around the development, linking the new neighbourhood with the surrounding rural network. The strategy therefore provides a relevant local precedent for using major development to address network gaps, create new and circular connections and improve access to the wider countryside.
Cambourne North is a major development opportunity of comparable significance and should similarly plan its countryside-access network comprehensively from the outset. The objective should be to use the scale of the development to:
• address existing network gaps;
• create new and circular countryside-access connections;
• connect the new development with existing Cambourne and surrounding settlements;
• connect into the wider rural network;
• accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function; and
• provide supporting facilities for countryside access where justified by the scale and function of the network.
This would help ensure that countryside access is planned as an integral part of creating a well-connected new settlement, rather than being limited to the protection of existing rights of way.
7. Strategic infrastructure and the A428
The interface between Cambourne North and the existing town is particularly important. The Local Plan identifies the need for strong connectivity between the two parts of Cambourne, while the A428, East West Rail and other strategic infrastructure create potential barriers to movement. These barriers should be considered as part of the wider PROW and countryside-access network, including the need to maintain and improve safe equestrian connectivity between Cambourne North, existing Cambourne, Bourn Airfield and the surrounding countryside.
New connections across or associated with these barriers should therefore be assessed as strategic network links, rather than solely according to the immediate purpose of an Active Travel facility. Their design should consider the needs of the lawful users of the wider network, equestrians, and should avoid creating new severance or transferring users onto less safe or less suitable routes.
Where a strategic connection can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use cannot be accommodated, the consequences for the wider equestrian and countryside-access network should be assessed and a safe, suitable and reasonably convenient alternative connection identified and secured where necessary.
This is particularly relevant to the relationship between Cambourne North, Cambourne, Bourn Airfield and the wider countryside, where the A428 and other strategic infrastructure have the potential either to strengthen or to sever existing and future countryside-access connections.
8. C2C provides a relevant local precedent
The recently approved Cambourne to Cambridge Guided Busway provides a particularly relevant local precedent for Policy S/CBN. The Inspectors considered accessibility, connectivity, diversions, crossings, convenience and safety as part of the wider rights-of-way network. They found that use of the emergency and maintenance track as an Active Travel route would enhance accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders and provide opportunities for journeys between Cambourne and Cambridge that were not otherwise available in their entirety.
The Inspectors also recognised the use of the emergency and maintenance track as an Active Travel route as a benefit of the Scheme. In their overall conclusions, they gave substantial weight to the opportunity for Active Travel along the track. The Inspector also found that its use as an Active Travel route would enhance accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
The C2C decision therefore provides a relevant local precedent for recognising the wider accessibility benefits that can arise when Active Travel provision associated with major strategic transport infrastructure is designed to accommodate equestrians as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The approved conditions also require detailed design approval for the formation, laying out or alteration of pedestrian, cycle and equestrian routes. This demonstrates that equestrian provision can be addressed through the detailed design and delivery of major transport infrastructure. This is directly relevant to Cambourne North, where the A428, C2C corridor and other strategic infrastructure will influence whether the wider countryside-access network remains connected.
9. East West Rail and station-area connectivity
East West Rail is particularly relevant to Cambourne North because the proposed railway and station will introduce significant new infrastructure into an area containing existing and emerging movement and countryside-access networks. The current EWR proposals include walking, wheeling and cycling connections to the station, including a proposed active travel bridge over the A428. The Local Plan should ensure that these proposals are coordinated with the wider Cambourne North Masterplan and do not result in the railway, station or associated infrastructure becoming a barrier to the continuity of the wider countryside-access network.
The C2C scheme provides a relevant local precedent for considering the wider opportunities presented by major transport infrastructure. As set out above, the C2C scheme demonstrates that an Active Travel route associated with strategic transport infrastructure can provide benefits for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. EWR should therefore be considered not only in terms of mitigating severance, but also as an opportunity to create or improve connections for communities and the wider countryside-access network alongside the railway, where these can be safely and appropriately achieved.
The BHS is not suggesting that equestrian access should necessarily be provided directly to or through the station. Rather, the station-area design and associated infrastructure should ensure that existing or potential equestrian routes are not severed or made less safe, and that suitable alternative routes and crossings are identified where necessary. The Masterplan and Transport Strategy should therefore establish a strategy for maintaining the continuity of the wider countryside-access network through and around the station area.
There is also a strategic opportunity for EWR to consider whether land alongside or associated with the railway could accommodate additional countryside-access provision, including equestrian-inclusive routes, where appropriate. This should be considered at an early stage so that opportunities are not lost through the subsequent design of the railway, station, access roads or associated infrastructure. EWR has previously acknowledged that opportunities for cycleways, bridleways and other routes alongside the railway have been raised and were being considered through its door-to-door connectivity work, although such provision is not currently identified as part of the Cambourne station proposals.
Where EWR, the A428 or other strategic infrastructure severs an existing route, the replacement connection should maintain its relevant lawful rights or provide a suitable alternative which preserves wider network connectivity. However, the approach should not be limited to replacement: opportunities to improve or extend the wider countryside-access network arising from strategic infrastructure should also be identified and considered through the Masterplan and Transport Strategy.
10. Delivery, phasing and stewardship
Given the scale and long build-out period of Cambourne North, connectivity cannot be left to the final phases. The policy should require the network to be identified, safeguarded, funded and delivered through the Masterplan, Transport Strategy, phasing, infrastructure funding, detailed design and long-term stewardship arrangements, with responsibilities and appropriate delivery triggers identified at the outset.
This should include early identification of:
• strategic countryside-access connections;
• safe crossings;
• links to surrounding villages and existing PROWs;
• opportunities to create or complete circular routes;
• connections between the Active Travel and wider countryside-access networks;
• opportunities for inclusive new rights of way and green corridors; and
• supporting facilities where these would make the network more useful and sustainable.
Delivery mechanisms should be sufficiently robust to ensure that later phases do not sever or compromise routes delivered through earlier phases, and that strategic connections required to maintain wider network continuity are delivered at the appropriate stage of development.
11. Proposed modification to Policy S/CBN
The BHS requests that Policy S/CBN is modified to include the following strategic requirements:
a. Existing Public Rights of Way and countryside access
Existing Public Rights of Way and other relevant countryside-access routes should be identified at the earliest stage of masterplanning, including their legal status and lawful users. Their continuity, safety and function should be protected, and opportunities to address existing gaps and strengthen connections to the wider network should be identified.
b. New countryside-access provision
New rights of way, green corridors and countryside-access routes should accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function. Where one or more user groups cannot be accommodated, this should be supported by a clear, site-specific and evidence-based reason, and the consequences for the wider network should be assessed.
c. Equestrian access and Active Travel
The needs of equestrians should be considered at the earliest stage of planning and designing development and infrastructure. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the constraint and the consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced.
d. Strategic infrastructure and severance
The Masterplan and Transport Strategy should identify and safeguard strategic countryside-access connections affected by the A428, East West Rail, the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor and other major infrastructure. Where infrastructure would sever an existing route, the relevant lawful rights should be maintained or a safe, suitable and reasonably convenient alternative should be secured. Opportunities to improve or extend the wider countryside-access network should also be identified where strategic infrastructure creates such opportunities.
e. Station and East West Rail interface
The Masterplan and Transport Strategy should establish a strategy to ensure that the East West Rail station, railway infrastructure and associated access arrangements do not become barriers to the continuity of the wider countryside-access network. Opportunities for additional countryside-access provision alongside or associated with the railway, including equestrian-inclusive routes where appropriate, should be considered and safeguarded at an early stage.
f. Delivery and phasing
The Masterplan, Transport Strategy and infrastructure delivery arrangements should identify responsibilities, land requirements, funding and appropriate delivery triggers for strategic countryside-access connections, crossings, missing links and other infrastructure necessary to maintain network continuity throughout the development.
g. Carriage-driving rights
Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the legal status and physical design of the route should reflect those rights.
12. Soundness
The BHS considers that the requested modifications are necessary to make Policy S/CBN sound.
Positively prepared: The modifications would ensure that the policy plans positively for a comprehensive and connected countryside-access network alongside the proposed scale of development and strategic infrastructure. They would address existing and potential network gaps, opportunities for new connections and the risk of cumulative severance as the development is delivered.
Justified: The modifications are justified by the scale of the allocation, the existing and potential countryside-access network, the interaction with the A428, East West Rail and the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor, the evidence and opportunities identified through the Plan, and the local Bourn Airfield precedent. The C2C Inspector's conclusions also provide a relevant local precedent for recognising the benefits that can arise from Active Travel provision accommodating pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders alongside major strategic transport infrastructure.
Effective: The modifications would provide a clearer basis for identifying, safeguarding, funding and delivering countryside-access connections through the Masterplan, Transport Strategy, infrastructure delivery arrangements, phasing and detailed design. This is particularly important given the scale and long build-out period of Cambourne North and the need for effective coordination with major infrastructure projects.
Consistent with national policy: The modifications would support the requirements of the NPPF 12 December 2024 concerning the protection and enhancement of Public Rights of Way and access, including opportunities to provide better facilities and links to existing networks. They also reflect the requirement that transport issues are considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and that opportunities arising from existing or proposed transport infrastructure are realised.
The modifications are proportionate. They do not require every Active Travel facility to accommodate horses, prescribe a particular surface or design, or require every countryside-access route to have the same legal status or accommodate every user. Instead, they establish an evidence-based approach to equestrian use and require the wider countryside-access network to be planned, protected and enhanced alongside the development and strategic infrastructure.
Taken together, the modifications would provide a clearer, more effective and deliverable policy framework for creating a connected countryside-access network as Cambourne North develops.
13. Conclusion
The BHS supports Policy S/CBN subject to modification.
Cambourne North is a major opportunity to plan a large-scale new community and its countryside-access network comprehensively from the outset. The policy should ensure that existing PROWs and the wider countryside-access network are protected and enhanced; that new rights of way and green corridors accommodate the widest practicable range of relevant lawful users where reasonably practicable and appropriate to their location and function; that the needs of equestrians are considered at the earliest stage of planning and design; and that strategic infrastructure does not create new severance or make existing connections less safe.
Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where appropriate, carriage-driving rights should be reflected in the legal status and design of relevant routes.
The A428, East West Rail, the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor and the development's relationship with existing Cambourne and Bourn Airfield should be treated as part of the wider countryside-access network. The East West Rail station should not become an access barrier, and the Masterplan and Transport Strategy should establish a strategy for maintaining network continuity through and around the station area. At the same time, EWR and other strategic infrastructure should be recognised as opportunities to create or improve countryside-access connections, including equestrian-inclusive provision where appropriate.
The Bourn Airfield Bridleway Links Strategy demonstrates the value of a connected network of routes, links into the wider countryside, user-informed design and supporting facilities. Cambourne North should consider comparable opportunities appropriate to its own scale and circumstances, rather than treating protection of existing rights of way as the limit of provision.
The BHS considers that these modifications are necessary to ensure that the scale and duration of Cambourne North are matched by a comprehensive, safe and deliverable countryside-access network, coordinated with Active Travel and strategic transport infrastructure and capable of maintaining and improving connectivity throughout the development period.
BHS Regulation 19 Representation – Policy S/CBN: Cambourne North

Policy S/GF should be modified to require a site-wide PROW and wider countryside-access strategy, planned alongside but distinct from the Active Travel network, identifying and safeguarding existing and proposed connections between Grange Farm, Little and Great Abington, Babraham, the proposed CSET Travel Hub, Linton and the wider countryside. The policy should require the needs of horse riders to be considered from the outset and, where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, require it to do so unless a clear, site-specific and evidenced constraint justifies exclusion. Criterion 13(e) should be strengthened from “Explore opportunities” to require a continuous and inclusive countryside-access connection accommodating horse riders and other appropriate lawful users. Criterion 13(c) should be clarified so that protection of the Roman Road does not prevent appropriate countryside-access connections and so that the Masterplan does not prejudice the future exercise or restoration of carriage-driving access through the appropriate statutory process.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy S/GF – Land adjacent to A11 and A1307 at Grange Farm
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification
1. Introduction
The British Horse Society (BHS) supports the objectives of Policy S/GF in securing a comprehensive movement and connectivity network for Grange Farm and connections with surrounding communities and employment areas. The BHS does not express a view on whether the Grange Farm allocation itself should proceed. This representation concerns the provision and protection of the Public Rights of Way (PROW) and wider countryside-access network associated with the proposed new settlement.
The policy should be modified so that the PROW and wider countryside-access network is planned as a distinct network alongside the Active Travel network, with appropriate connections between them. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage in planning and design, including safe and appropriate access to, and connectivity within, the PROW and wider countryside-access network. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant constraint and the consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced.
2. Existing PROW and the need for strategic connectivity
The site-wide Masterplan should therefore identify existing PROWs and other relevant countryside-access routes, their legal status and lawful users, and the connections required to maintain and improve continuity between Grange Farm and the surrounding network. This should include consideration of missing links, severance and opportunities for new or enhanced routes.
Policy S/GF already recognises the need to improve connections to Babraham, Babraham Research Campus, Little and Great Abington, Linton and Whittlesford, including addressing the severance created by the A11 and A1307. These strategic connections should not be considered solely as walking and cycling infrastructure. They also have the potential to contribute to the wider PROW and countryside-access network serving recreation, health, wellbeing and access to the countryside.
Grange Farm is a major new settlement of approximately 6,000 homes. The Strategic Allocations Assessment identifies the Roman Road Byway 4/1Little Abington as the northern boundary of the site and Public Footpath 4/2 Little Abington as passing through the site and terminating at Grange Farm Cottage. The existing PROW network therefore provides limited permeability through the allocation.
3. The wider equestrian network
The Plan should therefore consider the equestrian network as part of the wider countryside-access network around Grange Farm and should not rely on provision through CSET or other projects to resolve all existing or future connectivity requirements.
The current CSET Statement of Case identifies a bridleway on the Emergency and Maintenance Access Track between Granham’s Road and High Street, Babraham. CSET is not yet approved and remains subject to the Transport and Works Act Order process. The proposed CSET equestrian provision is for horse riders; it does not provide equivalent carriage-driving continuity. Grange Farm should therefore be planned to connect into the wider network rather than assuming that CSET will resolve all countryside-access requirements.
The strategic connections identified by Policy S/GF therefore have significance beyond access to the new settlement. They provide an opportunity to improve connectivity between existing communities and the wider countryside, including for horse riders, where safe and appropriate routes can be provided.
The location of Grange Farm is particularly significant for equestrian connectivity. The BHS understands that more than 60 horses are currently liveried in Great Abington. The A11 and A1307 create substantial barriers to safe movement between the Abingtons, Babraham, Grange Farm and the wider countryside.
4. Consistency with Policy S/RSC/BRC
Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the route must have the legal status and design needed to accommodate horse-drawn vehicles; a bridleway for horse riders does not provide the same right.
Policy S/GF should adopt a complementary approach by ensuring that the new settlement is connected to Babraham, the proposed CSET Travel Hub and the wider countryside-access network, rather than relying solely on walking and cycling provision.
Policy S/RSC/BRC provides a relevant internal precedent within the Regulation 19 Plan. It requires improvements to pedestrian, cycle and equestrian routes connecting the Babraham Research Campus with nearby villages, railway stations and the proposed CSET Travel Hub.
5. Active Travel and the PROW network
The same principle should apply to new and improved PROW and wider countryside-access routes. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the route's legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
This distinction should not be used to exclude equestrians where Active Travel infrastructure can safely accommodate horse riders. The needs of horse riders should be considered at the earliest stage in planning and design. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant constraint and the consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced.
The BHS considers it important that the Local Plan does not conflate the PROW and wider countryside-access network with the Active Travel network. Active Travel infrastructure is primarily concerned with utility journeys, whereas the PROW and wider countryside-access network provides recreational, leisure, health and wellbeing access to the countryside. The two networks should therefore be planned as distinct but complementary networks, with appropriate connections between them.
6. The Roman Road and carriage-driving continuity
The BHS supports the protection of the Worsted Street Roman Road and its archaeological, heritage and ecological interests. Criterion 13(c), which restricts direct access from the new settlement to the Roman Road, should not however inadvertently prevent appropriate PROW and wider countryside-access connectivity involving the existing byway.
The Traffic Regulation Orders applying along the Roman Road do not impose a consistent restriction on all forms of vehicular use. The 1992 Order covering the relevant section north of the Grange Farm allocation prohibits “any vehicle”, subject to specified permit exceptions. By contrast, subsequent Orders applying to other sections of the Roman Road prohibit “any motor vehicle with more than two wheels” and therefore do not prohibit horse-drawn vehicles under their operative prohibition. The 2009 Order applies this approach to sections of Balsham BOAT 4, Linton BOAT 23 and West Wickham BOAT 1, while the 2016 Order applies it to Babraham BOAT No. 3. The 1992 Order therefore creates a break in carriage-driving continuity along the Roman Road. The 1992 Order itself does not identify a specific justification for applying the prohibition to horse-drawn vehicles rather than limiting the restriction to mechanically propelled vehicles. The BHS supports the retention and, where possible through the appropriate statutory process, restoration of carriage-driving continuity along the Roman Road. This representation does not seek to amend the 1992 Traffic Regulation Order through the Local Plan, nor does it seek to permit mechanically propelled vehicles. Rather, it seeks to ensure that the development of Grange Farm does not prejudice the ability to restore or exercise carriage-driving access in the future. The Local Plan cannot itself amend the Traffic Regulation Order, but it can ensure that the Masterplan and site layout do not create a permanent physical or other barrier between the new settlement and the Roman Road, or otherwise prevent a connection capable of accommodating carriage driving if such access is permitted or subsequently established or restored through the appropriate statutory process.
Proposed modification
Policy S/GF should be amended to require the following:
1. Site-wide PROW and Wider Countryside-Access Strategy
A site-wide PROW and Wider Countryside-Access Strategy shall be prepared as a distinct component of the site-wide Masterplan and planned and delivered alongside the Active Travel network. The Strategy shall identify, safeguard and provide a coherent network of existing, new and enhanced Public Rights of Way and wider countryside-access routes connecting Grange Farm with Little and Great Abington, Babraham, the proposed CSET Travel Hub, Linton and the wider countryside and PROW network.
2. Equestrian inclusion
The policy should require the needs of horse riders to be considered at the earliest stage of planning and design. Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion. Where equestrian use is not proposed, the relevant constraint and the consequences for safe access and connectivity within the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced. Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the route's legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
3. Continuous and inclusive strategic connection
Replace criterion 13(e), currently requiring the Council/developer to “Explore opportunities” for an active travel connection, with a requirement to secure a continuous and connected countryside-access route between Grange Farm and the wider network towards Babraham, Little and Great Abington, the proposed CSET Travel Hub, the Linton Greenway and surrounding communities, coordinating with the proposed CSET connection if authorised and delivered.
The connection should be planned and designed to accommodate horse riders and other appropriate lawful users, rather than being limited to pedestrian and cycle provision. Where carriage-driving rights are intended or can appropriately be established, the legal status and physical design of the route should provide for horse-drawn vehicles. The route should provide a safe and continuous connection to the wider PROW and countryside-access network and should not rely on provision through CSET or any other project to deliver the necessary connectivity.
4. Clarification of criterion 13(c)
Add to criterion 13(c) that the restriction on direct access from the built settlement to the Worsted Street Roman Road shall not prevent appropriate PROW and wider countryside-access connections being identified and secured where these can be designed to protect the archaeological, heritage and ecological interests of the Roman Road and its setting. The Masterplan and site layout should safeguard an appropriate connection between Grange Farm and the Roman Road and should not create a physical or other barrier to carriage-driving access where such access is permitted or subsequently established or restored through the appropriate statutory process. The restriction should not be interpreted as requiring the permanent exclusion of horse-drawn vehicles from any future countryside-access connection.
Conclusion
Policy S/GF provides an opportunity to address existing severance and create a genuinely connected countryside-access network around a major new settlement. The policy already recognises the need for connections to the Abingtons, Babraham and Linton, but currently frames these largely through Active Travel.
The modifications sought by the BHS would ensure that the Active Travel network and the distinct PROW and wider countryside-access network are planned together but not conflated, and that equestrian users—including carriage drivers—are considered from the outset. They would also ensure that the development does not prejudice the future restoration or exercise of carriage-driving access along the Roman Road, where permitted or established through the appropriate statutory process.
The modifications would strengthen the policy’s effectiveness and consistency with the national requirement to protect and enhance public rights of way and to take opportunities to extend, link and improve routes. They would also ensure that the spatial planning of Grange Farm does not unnecessarily perpetuate an existing break in carriage-driving continuity along a wider public highway network.
The BHS therefore supports Policy S/GF with the modifications set out above. The BHS is not seeking through this Local Plan representation to restore mechanically propelled vehicle access along the restricted section of the Roman Road; its position is specifically to protect the opportunity for carriage-driving continuity, subject to the relevant public rights and any appropriate statutory process concerning the existing Traffic Regulation Order.

Modify Policy S/ED and its supporting requirements so that the Phase 2 masterplan and associated Movement and Green Infrastructure strategies:
• safeguard and enhance the existing PROW and wider countryside-access network serving Eddington;
• identify and safeguard the proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways and the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2, including the land and widening required for its completion;
• ensure that Phase 2 development does not prejudice opportunities for future connections between the existing FP99/4–FP99/5–FP154/3 route, Bridleway 39/30 and the wider countryside-access network;
• safeguard the longer-term opportunity for connection to the equestrian-accessible Cambourne to Cambridge corridor, subject to the provision of a safe and suitable multi-user crossing or other appropriate connection;
• ensure that the western landscape/open-space framework and strategic crossings do not prejudice delivery of these connections;
• require equestrians to be considered from the earliest planning and design stage in relation to new and improved Active Travel provision and wider countryside-access infrastructure;
• where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, require it to do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion;
• where equestrian use is excluded, require the relevant constraint and the consequences for the safety and connectivity of the wider PROW and countryside-access network to be identified and evidenced;
• where carriage-driving rights are intended, ensure that the route’s legal status and physical design reflect those rights; and
• identify the necessary land, legal, design and physical infrastructure requirements and secure appropriate proportionate developer contributions towards delivery where the statutory tests for planning obligations are met.

These changes would ensure that the policy's objectives for movement, Green Infrastructure and countryside connectivity are delivered without prejudicing the existing and potential wider PROW and equestrian network.

The British Horse Society
Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Regulation 19
Policy S/ED – Eddington
Soundness tests: Positively prepared; Justified; Effective; Consistent with national policy
Representation: Support with Modification
1. Representation
The British Horse Society supports the objectives of Policy S/ED but considers that the policy should be modified to ensure that its requirements for movement, green corridors, connections to the surrounding countryside, masterplanning and infrastructure delivery properly safeguard the existing PROW and wider countryside-access network serving Eddington. In particular, the policy should safeguard the identified opportunity to upgrade FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways and provide the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2, and should ensure that Phase 2 does not prejudice future strategic countryside-access connections.
2. Existing PROW network and improvement opportunity
Eddington sits within an established network of Public Rights of Way connecting West Cambridge, Girton, Madingley, Dry Drayton and the surrounding countryside. The existing route comprising Girton Footpaths 99/4 and 99/5 and Madingley Footpath 154/3 comprises existing public footpaths. The A14 bridge has subsequently been improved, although the Definitive Map does not currently record the bridge as a bridleway.
The Eddington Transport Assessment identifies a proposal to upgrade Footpaths 99/4 and 99/5 to bridleways and to provide an associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2. The assessment records that this proposed improvement has not been implemented. The section between the A14 bridge and the A1307 requires widening, and negotiations concerning the land required for the proposed route have not secured the necessary agreement.
This represents a significant outstanding opportunity to improve the wider countryside-access network and extend the bridleway network in this part of West Cambridge. The proposed improvement would provide an opportunity to create a stronger connection between the existing local bridleway network and the wider countryside-access network, subject to the necessary land, legal, design and physical works.
3. Cambourne to Cambridge and Bridleway 39/30
The approved Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) scheme provides important wider strategic context. Bridleway 39/30 is an existing equestrian route affected by the scheme and is being diverted and connected into the C2C infrastructure. The scheme includes a path alongside the route for walkers, cyclists and, where appropriate, horse riders, with equestrian connections provided through the rights of way arrangements.
The BHS recognises that a direct equestrian connection between the Eddington network and the C2C corridor would require an appropriate and safe crossing of intervening major road infrastructure or another suitable connection. The Local Plan should therefore not assume that such a connection can be delivered through the Eddington allocation alone. However, Phase 2 should not be planned in a manner that prejudices the opportunity for such a connection if suitable crossing or other infrastructure becomes available in future.
The supporting information for Policy S/ED emphasises green corridors, connections to the landscaped western edge, the strategic role of the Ridgeway and sustainable transport networks. It does not, however, expressly identify the existing PROW routes described above, the proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways, or the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2. The BHS therefore considers that the policy needs precise site-specific requirements to safeguard the wider countryside-access network and the identified opportunity for improved equestrian connectivity.
4. Relationship between Active Travel and the PROW network
The British Horse Society considers that the Active Travel network and the PROW and wider countryside-access network are distinct but complementary. The former has an important utility and everyday-journey function, while the latter provides access to the countryside for recreation, leisure, wellbeing and other lawful users.
This distinction should not, however, result in the automatic exclusion of equestrians from new and improved Active Travel infrastructure where it can safely accommodate equestrian use. Equestrians should be considered from the earliest stage of route planning and design.
Where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, it should do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion.
Where equestrian use is excluded, the relevant constraint and the consequences for the safety and connectivity of the wider PROW and countryside-access network should be identified and evidenced. New rural or green corridors should be planned so that, where appropriate, they can contribute to both the Active Travel and wider countryside-access networks.
Where carriage-driving rights are intended, the route’s legal status and physical design should reflect those rights.
5. Phase 2 and delivery
The remaining phases of Eddington provide an opportunity to address this existing infrastructure gap as part of the development's wider movement and Green Infrastructure framework. The Phase 2 masterplan should identify the existing and emerging PROW, bridleway and countryside-access network, including FP99/4, FP99/5 and FP154/3; the proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways and associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2; Bridleway 39/30; and the C2C corridor.
The Council should identify the proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways and the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2 as strategic countryside-access infrastructure requiring safeguarding and delivery consideration, and assess the land, legal, design and physical works required to deliver it. This should include consideration of the outstanding widening and associated works needed to make the proposed route fully usable by its intended users. An appropriate and proportionate developer contribution through the Section 106 agreement should be secured towards delivery where the statutory tests for planning obligations are met.
The policy should ensure that Phase 2 development does not prejudice the future delivery of the proposed bridleway upgrade and associated Madingley Road connection, including through the layout of the western landscaped/open-space framework or the location and design of strategic crossings. It should also safeguard the opportunity for a future connection between the Eddington countryside-access network, Bridleway 39/30 and the equestrian-accessible C2C corridor, subject to a safe and suitable multi-user crossing or other appropriate connection.
6. Proposed modification
Modify Policy S/ED and its supporting requirements so that the Phase 2 masterplan and associated movement and Green Infrastructure strategies:
• safeguard and enhance the existing PROW and wider countryside-access network serving Eddington;
• identify and safeguard the proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways and the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2, including the land and widening required for its completion;
• ensure that Phase 2 development does not prejudice opportunities for future connections between the existing FP99/4–FP99/5–FP154/3 route, Bridleway 39/30 and the wider countryside-access network;
• safeguard the longer-term opportunity for connection to the equestrian-accessible Cambourne to Cambridge corridor, subject to the provision of a safe and suitable multi-user crossing or other appropriate connection;
• ensure that the western landscape/open-space framework and strategic crossings do not prejudice delivery of these connections;
• require equestrians to be considered from the earliest planning and design stage in relation to new and improved Active Travel provision and wider countryside-access infrastructure;
• where Active Travel provision can safely accommodate equestrian use, require it to do so unless a relevant site-specific physical, environmental, legal or safety constraint provides a clear and evidenced reason for exclusion;
• where equestrian use is excluded, require the relevant constraint and the consequences for the safety and connectivity of the wider PROW and countryside-access network to be identified and evidenced;
• where carriage-driving rights are intended, ensure that the route’s legal status and physical design reflect those rights; and
• identify the necessary land, legal, design and physical infrastructure requirements and secure appropriate proportionate developer contributions towards delivery where the statutory tests for planning obligations are met.
7. Conclusion
Policy S/ED provides a strong framework for movement, Green Infrastructure, green corridors and connections with the surrounding countryside, but it does not sufficiently safeguard the continuity of the PROW and wider countryside-access network or ensure that equestrians are properly considered within relevant Active Travel infrastructure.
The proposed upgrade of FP99/4 and FP99/5 to bridleways, together with the associated connection towards Madingley Road via Bridleway 154/2 and the required widening and land arrangements, represents a specific infrastructure opportunity identified in the Eddington evidence. Bridleway 39/30 and the approved C2C scheme provide important wider strategic context. The physical feasibility of a direct Eddington–C2C equestrian connection depends on suitable crossing or other infrastructure outside the allocation and should therefore be safeguarded as a future opportunity rather than assumed to be immediately deliverable.
The remaining phases of Eddington should safeguard the existing and emerging countryside-access network, secure the identified opportunity to upgrade FP99/4 and FP99/5 and provide the associated Madingley Road connection via Bridleway 154/2, and ensure that development does not prejudice future wider connections. Active Travel and the distinct PROW and countryside-access network should be planned together where appropriate, with equestrian use considered from the outset and excluded only where a clear, site-specific and evidenced constraint exists.
The British Horse Society therefore supports Policy S/ED with the modifications set out above. These changes would make the policy more effective in delivering its stated objectives for movement, Green Infrastructure and countryside connectivity, while ensuring that the equestrian and wider PROW network is properly considered alongside Active Travel.