Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

In the response to the recent consultation on the Local Plan the Council says that its reason for not including PROW enhancements in the Local Plan is because "PROW enhancements are typically delivered through site-specific design, master planning and planning obligations, rather than as discrete, plan-wide infrastructure projects. The IDP should be read alongside Rights of Way Improvement Plans and other supporting strategies, as referenced in the revised supporting text for the policy, which provide the detailed framework for prioritising and delivering PROW enhancements in a coordinated manner."

The problem with this statement is that there is no mechanism for NMU groups to be consulted on PROWs at the master planning stage. There is no mechanism for addressing historical gaps to existing PROWs, and these often fall outside the area of the development.

We are submitting proposals to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan currently under consultation. The Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy makes no recommendations for PROWs. The Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy makes minimal reference to PROW as eligible for Section 106 funding and is included in the definition of accessible green space. There is a map of current cycle ways and existing PROWs in Figure D1.4 but no proposals to address current gaps or aspirations of new pathways associated with new growth.

It appears that any proposals for PROWs are relatively neglected in both the Highways Authority and the Planning Authority.

The Ramblers object to the Plan on the grounds that there is no policy/mechanism included which details just how public rights of way will be covered in the development of site-specific proposals for major new settlements or extensions. We need a policy which states categorically that recreational and transport user groups will be included at an early stage in master planning of any development of more than e.g. 500 dwellings. (And such development cannot be broken down into multiple applications for less than 500 homes).

What is needed is a vision, and a plan, for improving the footpath and bridleway network, both in town and countryside, for people to benefit from walking for leisure and recreation as well as active travel. Then development plans can be properly assessed against Policy I/ST. Currently, without a footpath and bridleway network plan, Policy I/ST has no teeth and planners are obliged to accept whatever the developers propose.

The demand for PROWS is increasing. In Cambridgeshire 77% people walk every week, 63 % for leisure purposes and 43% walk for active travel and 23% of people cycle each week. Plus 36% of households own a dog.

We hope our objections on the grounds of insufficient value being placed on PROWs in the process for approving developments can be addressed.