North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

***PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPRESENTATION WAS MADE AFTER THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE***

Q24: Access to the Cam, via Fen Road.
But this must, of course work recipically to give access to the NECAAP development to those who live and work East of the Railway (EotR). The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails. See my response to Q17

Q50: The proposal that I made re including the aree East of the Railway (EotR) in the NECAAP area (for Q2) does not imply that EotR should be fully integrated within the NECAAP for land development. The travellers sites can be left and arguably the industrial sites. Much of this area is in any case green belt.
However, the opportunity should be taken to bring mains drainage to this EotR area of Fen Road, if only under the NECAAP's obligations to its neighbours. It is appalling that this area is left off mains drainage because the inhabitants are predominantly travellers, who do not count in the arithmetic of who deserves mains sanitation!

It will be appalling if there is to be an area without mains sanitation within yards of the new NECAAP area.

Q72: Yes, the Section 106 Regime should be specifically used, along with a contribution from Network Rail, to support the enhanced roadbridge with the cycle and pedestrian bridge proposed to access recreational facilities in the green belt on Fen Road and the Cam.

***PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPRESENTATION WAS MADE AFTER THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE***

Q24: Access to the Cam, via Fen Road.
But this must, of course work recipically to give access to the NECAAP development to those who live and work East of the Railway (EotR). The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails. See my response to Q17

Q50: The proposal that I made re including the aree East of the Railway (EotR) in the NECAAP area (for Q2) does not imply that EotR should be fully integrated within the NECAAP for land development. The travellers sites can be left and arguably the industrial sites. Much of this area is in any case green belt.
However, the opportunity should be taken to bring mains drainage to this EotR area of Fen Road, if only under the NECAAP's obligations to its neighbours. It is appalling that this area is left off mains drainage because the inhabitants are predominantly travellers, who do not count in the arithmetic of who deserves mains sanitation!

It will be appalling if there is to be an area without mains sanitation within yards of the new NECAAP area.

Q72: Yes, the Section 106 Regime should be specifically used, along with a contribution from Network Rail, to support the enhanced roadbridge with the cycle and pedestrian bridge proposed to access recreational facilities in the green belt on Fen Road and the Cam.

***PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPRESENTATION WAS MADE AFTER THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE***

Q24: Access to the Cam, via Fen Road.
But this must, of course work recipically to give access to the NECAAP development to those who live and work East of the Railway (EotR). The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails. See my response to Q17

Q50: The proposal that I made re including the aree East of the Railway (EotR) in the NECAAP area (for Q2) does not imply that EotR should be fully integrated within the NECAAP for land development. The travellers sites can be left and arguably the industrial sites. Much of this area is in any case green belt.
However, the opportunity should be taken to bring mains drainage to this EotR area of Fen Road, if only under the NECAAP's obligations to its neighbours. It is appalling that this area is left off mains drainage because the inhabitants are predominantly travellers, who do not count in the arithmetic of who deserves mains sanitation!

It will be appalling if there is to be an area without mains sanitation within yards of the new NECAAP area.

Q72: Yes, the Section 106 Regime should be specifically used, along with a contribution from Network Rail, to support the enhanced roadbridge with the cycle and pedestrian bridge proposed to access recreational facilities in the green belt on Fen Road and the Cam.

Proposed boundary.
Full response to question 2:
This response is written by someone who lives with his family and works within the are to the east of the current NECAAP site, east of the railway line. This is discussed in the consulation document only in terms of the travellers' sites there. Whilst the travellers' sites are an important part of the area and need to be considered, there are also a singificant number of private houses, farms, flats -- particularly at the Chesterton end of the road -- and places of work, which are not connected to the travellers and need consderation separately as well as together.
The reasons for including the Nuffield Road and Bramblefields areas in the NECAAP apply equally to this area.
I shall call this area the Fen Road Cut Off, because it is largely cut off by the level crossing when it is closed.
The opening of the Cambridge North Station has already severely negatively impacted this area. The greater number of rail movements has meant that, contrary to initial promises, the down times of the level crossing gates have increased, sometimes to 15 minutes at a time. This not only causes delay and frustration to those waiting at the crossing (and possible risk to life in case of access by emergency vehicles) but also leads to impatience, anger and therefore speeding and risk-taking and congestion affecting the other residents of Chesterton -- and indeed attempts to rush the barrier which have delayed trains and cost Network Rail signiifcant sums in maintenance and in delay penalties.
This will get worse with greater use of the station with more and longer trains.
Secondly the AAP proposes a predestrian and cycle bridge into the area for access to the Cam and other recreational purposes in the area, which is mostly green belt. This may be a good use of the area, but also implies a relationship with NECAAP and a growing likelihood of the Cut Off
Whether or not this area actually becomes part of the offical NECAAP area it is affected by NECAAP and its needs must be taken into account as a neighbouring area impacted by the plan.

Full response to question 17:
Yes. The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line (EotR) are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails.

From the **Sustainability** POV this would reduce journeys by enabling access for heavy vehicles (and buses?) and for vehicle movements from Fen Road heading out of Cambridge. From the sustainability POV the optimum would be to keep the exisiting level crossing but with restrictions on vehicle size and restrictions on through vehicles (using ANPR like Addenbrookes), so that traffic volumes in Chesterton would be significantly reduced.
With the help of buses and their future replacements *public transport* could be brought in to EotR -- including in the context of NECAAP's recreational needs, thus further reducing the need for motor cars which are the only real option for those who dwell EotR at present because of the distances. There are also an increasing number of elderly people, especially within the "traveller" population (they travel much less or not at all because of their age) for whom access is an increasing problem.
To meet the needs of the EotR population, however, it is important that any bridge be in the middle of Fen Road, rather than at the North end. The obvious location is a continuation of the stub road at the North of the railway car park, where, moreoever, there are only 4, comparatively close, railway tracks to cross, to land on the area of the railway mast, and which would involve less disruption to get to Fen Road. This will also minimise routes for trucks leaving Fen Road and keep them within what will probably be the more commercial area of the station area development.
If the level crossing remains open for smaller vehicles (rather than being completely closed as some have suggested), the actual location of the pedestrian/cycle/road bridge is less important, but still should not be at the far North.

The additonal costs of the roadbridge to those of the pedestrian.cycle bridge already proposed can perhaps be funded by:
a contribution from Network Rail -- who have an interest in reducing the use of the level crossing
and a S106 contribution from developers for recreational purposes and to reduce the disbenefits of NECAAP to the EotR communities, traveller and otherwise.

Full response to question 83:
Equalities Impacts
The NECAAP will have an increasing impact on the travelling community who are an important part of those living East of the Railway line (EotR). This impact could be negative (as would currently seem most likely) or it could be positive. For it to be positive it either needs the EotR area to be included in the NECAAP, or for the NECAAP to think much more seriously about the area as part of its obligations, eg under Objective 5:
"NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas. "

AT present the EQIA says: "The I&O2 report does not propose to include the existing traveller sites within the area of the NECAAP. If this changes then due regard will be paid to the impact of any redevelopment proposals on the traveller community, and any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act Articles and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be taken into account.

It is appalling that the intention appears to be only to take into account the impact on travellers (not to mention other residents and workers EotR) if the EotR area is included in the NECAAP. The impact must be taken into consdieration, either way. By including them in the NECAAP, however, it might give the ability for NECAAP to become a trailblazing demonstrator for a properly inclusive development, where travellers needs are fully considered rather than leaving travellers, as is much more common, on the outside.

At the moment the only reference to travellers' needs in the I&O2 report seems to be from the POV of providing more travellers sites within NECAAP. Given the large concentration of sites already in Fen Road, this would appear unncessary.

But no other consideration seems to have been given to the significant impact on the quality of life of travellers and others living in the Fen Road area. This is surely unacceptable.

Proposed boundary.
Full response to question 2:
This response is written by someone who lives with his family and works within the are to the east of the current NECAAP site, east of the railway line. This is discussed in the consulation document only in terms of the travellers' sites there. Whilst the travellers' sites are an important part of the area and need to be considered, there are also a singificant number of private houses, farms, flats -- particularly at the Chesterton end of the road -- and places of work, which are not connected to the travellers and need consderation separately as well as together.
The reasons for including the Nuffield Road and Bramblefields areas in the NECAAP apply equally to this area.
I shall call this area the Fen Road Cut Off, because it is largely cut off by the level crossing when it is closed.
The opening of the Cambridge North Station has already severely negatively impacted this area. The greater number of rail movements has meant that, contrary to initial promises, the down times of the level crossing gates have increased, sometimes to 15 minutes at a time. This not only causes delay and frustration to those waiting at the crossing (and possible risk to life in case of access by emergency vehicles) but also leads to impatience, anger and therefore speeding and risk-taking and congestion affecting the other residents of Chesterton -- and indeed attempts to rush the barrier which have delayed trains and cost Network Rail signiifcant sums in maintenance and in delay penalties.
This will get worse with greater use of the station with more and longer trains.
Secondly the AAP proposes a predestrian and cycle bridge into the area for access to the Cam and other recreational purposes in the area, which is mostly green belt. This may be a good use of the area, but also implies a relationship with NECAAP and a growing likelihood of the Cut Off
Whether or not this area actually becomes part of the offical NECAAP area it is affected by NECAAP and its needs must be taken into account as a neighbouring area impacted by the plan.

Full response to question 17:
Yes. The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line (EotR) are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails.

From the **Sustainability** POV this would reduce journeys by enabling access for heavy vehicles (and buses?) and for vehicle movements from Fen Road heading out of Cambridge. From the sustainability POV the optimum would be to keep the exisiting level crossing but with restrictions on vehicle size and restrictions on through vehicles (using ANPR like Addenbrookes), so that traffic volumes in Chesterton would be significantly reduced.
With the help of buses and their future replacements *public transport* could be brought in to EotR -- including in the context of NECAAP's recreational needs, thus further reducing the need for motor cars which are the only real option for those who dwell EotR at present because of the distances. There are also an increasing number of elderly people, especially within the "traveller" population (they travel much less or not at all because of their age) for whom access is an increasing problem.
To meet the needs of the EotR population, however, it is important that any bridge be in the middle of Fen Road, rather than at the North end. The obvious location is a continuation of the stub road at the North of the railway car park, where, moreoever, there are only 4, comparatively close, railway tracks to cross, to land on the area of the railway mast, and which would involve less disruption to get to Fen Road. This will also minimise routes for trucks leaving Fen Road and keep them within what will probably be the more commercial area of the station area development.
If the level crossing remains open for smaller vehicles (rather than being completely closed as some have suggested), the actual location of the pedestrian/cycle/road bridge is less important, but still should not be at the far North.

The additonal costs of the roadbridge to those of the pedestrian.cycle bridge already proposed can perhaps be funded by:
a contribution from Network Rail -- who have an interest in reducing the use of the level crossing
and a S106 contribution from developers for recreational purposes and to reduce the disbenefits of NECAAP to the EotR communities, traveller and otherwise.

Full response to question 83:
Equalities Impacts
The NECAAP will have an increasing impact on the travelling community who are an important part of those living East of the Railway line (EotR). This impact could be negative (as would currently seem most likely) or it could be positive. For it to be positive it either needs the EotR area to be included in the NECAAP, or for the NECAAP to think much more seriously about the area as part of its obligations, eg under Objective 5:
"NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas. "

AT present the EQIA says: "The I&O2 report does not propose to include the existing traveller sites within the area of the NECAAP. If this changes then due regard will be paid to the impact of any redevelopment proposals on the traveller community, and any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act Articles and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be taken into account.

It is appalling that the intention appears to be only to take into account the impact on travellers (not to mention other residents and workers EotR) if the EotR area is included in the NECAAP. The impact must be taken into consdieration, either way. By including them in the NECAAP, however, it might give the ability for NECAAP to become a trailblazing demonstrator for a properly inclusive development, where travellers needs are fully considered rather than leaving travellers, as is much more common, on the outside.

At the moment the only reference to travellers' needs in the I&O2 report seems to be from the POV of providing more travellers sites within NECAAP. Given the large concentration of sites already in Fen Road, this would appear unncessary.

But no other consideration seems to have been given to the significant impact on the quality of life of travellers and others living in the Fen Road area. This is surely unacceptable.

Proposed boundary.
Full response to question 2:
This response is written by someone who lives with his family and works within the are to the east of the current NECAAP site, east of the railway line. This is discussed in the consulation document only in terms of the travellers' sites there. Whilst the travellers' sites are an important part of the area and need to be considered, there are also a singificant number of private houses, farms, flats -- particularly at the Chesterton end of the road -- and places of work, which are not connected to the travellers and need consderation separately as well as together.
The reasons for including the Nuffield Road and Bramblefields areas in the NECAAP apply equally to this area.
I shall call this area the Fen Road Cut Off, because it is largely cut off by the level crossing when it is closed.
The opening of the Cambridge North Station has already severely negatively impacted this area. The greater number of rail movements has meant that, contrary to initial promises, the down times of the level crossing gates have increased, sometimes to 15 minutes at a time. This not only causes delay and frustration to those waiting at the crossing (and possible risk to life in case of access by emergency vehicles) but also leads to impatience, anger and therefore speeding and risk-taking and congestion affecting the other residents of Chesterton -- and indeed attempts to rush the barrier which have delayed trains and cost Network Rail signiifcant sums in maintenance and in delay penalties.
This will get worse with greater use of the station with more and longer trains.
Secondly the AAP proposes a predestrian and cycle bridge into the area for access to the Cam and other recreational purposes in the area, which is mostly green belt. This may be a good use of the area, but also implies a relationship with NECAAP and a growing likelihood of the Cut Off
Whether or not this area actually becomes part of the offical NECAAP area it is affected by NECAAP and its needs must be taken into account as a neighbouring area impacted by the plan.

Full response to question 17:
Yes. The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line (EotR) are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails.

From the **Sustainability** POV this would reduce journeys by enabling access for heavy vehicles (and buses?) and for vehicle movements from Fen Road heading out of Cambridge. From the sustainability POV the optimum would be to keep the exisiting level crossing but with restrictions on vehicle size and restrictions on through vehicles (using ANPR like Addenbrookes), so that traffic volumes in Chesterton would be significantly reduced.
With the help of buses and their future replacements *public transport* could be brought in to EotR -- including in the context of NECAAP's recreational needs, thus further reducing the need for motor cars which are the only real option for those who dwell EotR at present because of the distances. There are also an increasing number of elderly people, especially within the "traveller" population (they travel much less or not at all because of their age) for whom access is an increasing problem.
To meet the needs of the EotR population, however, it is important that any bridge be in the middle of Fen Road, rather than at the North end. The obvious location is a continuation of the stub road at the North of the railway car park, where, moreoever, there are only 4, comparatively close, railway tracks to cross, to land on the area of the railway mast, and which would involve less disruption to get to Fen Road. This will also minimise routes for trucks leaving Fen Road and keep them within what will probably be the more commercial area of the station area development.
If the level crossing remains open for smaller vehicles (rather than being completely closed as some have suggested), the actual location of the pedestrian/cycle/road bridge is less important, but still should not be at the far North.

The additonal costs of the roadbridge to those of the pedestrian.cycle bridge already proposed can perhaps be funded by:
a contribution from Network Rail -- who have an interest in reducing the use of the level crossing
and a S106 contribution from developers for recreational purposes and to reduce the disbenefits of NECAAP to the EotR communities, traveller and otherwise.

Full response to question 83:
Equalities Impacts
The NECAAP will have an increasing impact on the travelling community who are an important part of those living East of the Railway line (EotR). This impact could be negative (as would currently seem most likely) or it could be positive. For it to be positive it either needs the EotR area to be included in the NECAAP, or for the NECAAP to think much more seriously about the area as part of its obligations, eg under Objective 5:
"NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas. "

AT present the EQIA says: "The I&O2 report does not propose to include the existing traveller sites within the area of the NECAAP. If this changes then due regard will be paid to the impact of any redevelopment proposals on the traveller community, and any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act Articles and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be taken into account.

It is appalling that the intention appears to be only to take into account the impact on travellers (not to mention other residents and workers EotR) if the EotR area is included in the NECAAP. The impact must be taken into consdieration, either way. By including them in the NECAAP, however, it might give the ability for NECAAP to become a trailblazing demonstrator for a properly inclusive development, where travellers needs are fully considered rather than leaving travellers, as is much more common, on the outside.

At the moment the only reference to travellers' needs in the I&O2 report seems to be from the POV of providing more travellers sites within NECAAP. Given the large concentration of sites already in Fen Road, this would appear unncessary.

But no other consideration seems to have been given to the significant impact on the quality of life of travellers and others living in the Fen Road area. This is surely unacceptable.