Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Strongly disagree

‘Connectivity and movement’ is missing. Should be a major theme as transport will significantly affect other ‘Big Themes’. See Q6.

Strongly disagree

(1) ‘Connectivity and movement’ is missing. Should be a major theme as transport will significantly affect other ‘Big Themes’. (2) Needs to be recognition of the draft Cambridge and Peterborough Local Transport Plan 2019 (LTP) and how all new major developments should be planned around the transport network. (3) The mistakes of the previous SC Local Plan were that new settlements at Cambourne and Northstowe were planned and built without commensurate, adequate public transport networks and hubs. In both cases the new settlements were left with insufficient transport infrastructure to cope with the resultant travel patterns, especially daily commuting in Cambridge. The retrofitted solutions such as the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway have proven to be woefully inadequate for dual tasks of transporting large numbers of commuters and initiating modal change away from the private car. (4) Cambourne, a commuter settlement for Cambridge, has no railway station leaving residents reliant on road transport to commute into Cambridge. The solutions on offer, namely a second guided busway (C2C) or CAM cannot provide sufficient capacity or a fast enough service into the city to meet unmet demand for public transport, or instigate modal change away from the private car. The Plan should recognise the PRA by EWR for Option E through Cambourne, which makes the C2C and CAM proposals for Cambourne redundant (albeit EWR arriving at the wrong point in Cambridge, Cambridge South/Addenbrookes Station). (5) Better still, EWR should exercise their own proposal to consider an entry into Cambridge from the north, such as proposed by CamBedRailRoad (CBRR: see map attached), arriving at Cambridge North Station. If adopted, even a light rail system sharing the heavy rails of CBRR’s route would have passenger capacity an order of magnitude greater than C2C/CAM, C2C and CAM proposals for both Cambourne and Northstowe redundant. (6) Cambridge and its hinterland suffer from some of the worse traffic congestion in the country, a problem exacerbated by strategic sites at Northstowe, Bourn Airfield, Waterbeach and Cambourne were built without adequate transport infrastructure. The new, combined Local Plan will only repeat these mistakes if transport and land use planning are once again divorced from each other. (7) Strategic planning in England’s greatest failure has been its inability to plan and provide interconnected, multi-modal networks of private and public transportation with major new development. This failure has resulted in congestion, pollution, loss of productivity and adverse consequences for human health and well being. (8) This problem is particularly acute in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire due to it being the fastest growing area of the country. It is essential that the first Greater Cambridge Local Plan champions integrated transport and land use planning. Leaving transport planning as an after-thought will exacerbate the very problems that the local planning authorities wish to ameliorate by having a joint development plan.

(1) Transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, * as well as generating other pollutants that are injurious to health. The joint LPA will never begin to attain reduction in CO2 emissions (Big Theme climate change) and improved health (Big Theme well being and social inclusion) unless all major new development is served by efficient, workable and adequate public transport alternatives focused on the area’s daily commuting patterns. (2) Although all measures to make more efficient use of resources are welcome, in terms of addressing CO2 emissions, providing reliable, effective public transport will have a significantly greater impact than promoting sustainable design, as transportation accounts for double the emissions of residential dwellings. The Local Plan must require the location of all proposed strategic sites to be predicated on the provision of multi-modal transport networks providing realistic, attractive and cost effective alternatives to the private car and road freight. (3) In particular, the Local Plan should prohibit any proposal to run massively polluting diesel-powered trains, such as are currently proposed by EWR between Bedford and Cambridge. *https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/776083/2017_Final_emissions_statistics_one_page_summary.pdf

See Q8. Fully integrating land use and transport planning is the most effective way of reducing impact on climate. This Local Plan should put this at the heart of its spatial strategy.

(1) by • Minimising land take with new developments, including new transport infrastructure. • Ensuring new development minimises impact on connectivity between green spaces and the coherent nature of the ecological network. • Enhancing protection of local green space, statutorily and non-statutorily protected wildlife sites. (2) The EWR central section is an opportunity for improved transport connectivity within and outside the Greater Cambridge area. Unfortunately, preferred route Option E proposed by EWRCo requires a vast amount of land-take across rural South Cambridgeshire. This is not only environmentally unsustainable, but unnecessary. (3) Until the alignment is announced, Planning Blight has been imposed over an unnecessarily large area. Such Blight should be proscribed. (4) CBRR has demonstrated that a route that follows as far as possible existing road trunk road corridors (A428 / A421) and utilises existing rail track corridors entering Cambridge from the north would serve new communities at Northstowe and Cambourne and minimise blight of rural areas, loss of agricultural land and destruction of wildlife sites. (5) EWR Co’s route Option E would be hugely damaging to the natural environment. A multi-modal road-rail corridor along the A421/A428 as proposed by CBRR would enable the growth envisaged in the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan whilst avoiding huge, irreversible damage to the natural environment.

Neither important nor unimportant

(1) An effective transportation system is fundamental to sustaining economic growth, indeed it cannot be achieved without adequate transport infrastructure to serve the labour market. The relationship between traffic congestion and productivity is well established. Congestion imposes a huge costs on the economy, with the cumulative cost of congestion in the UK is estimated to be £307 billion, equivalent to 18% of GDP. * (2) Of all journeys undertaken, it is commuting that has by far the greatest effect on productivity and growth. (3) The Councils state that they have committed to a goal of doubling the total economic output of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area over 25 years. Any attempts to increase output will be negated by increased journey times for commuting households. (4) The main clusters of economic activity in the Greater Cambridge area are, and will continue to be, the city centre, Biomedical Campus and Science Park. These centres will be the focuses for further employment and innovation. CBRR has shown how all three economic centres can be served by the East West Rail line providing a fast, direct, high capacity heavy rail link to commuting satellite settlements at Cambourne, Northstowe and Bourn Airfield, and St. Neots and Bedford. (5) Continued economic growth will be unworkable unless existing congestion is tackled and efficient public transport systems are designed at the outset into all major development in the area. (6) Central and local Government agencies opine that they wish to increase the productivity of the Oxford-Milton Keynes- Cambridge Arc. If the East West Railway is going to have the greatest impact on productivity and economic growth it must be focused primarily towards reducing commuting journey times, with reduction in long distance travel time being a secondary objective. EWR can achieve this by providing local station stops near the larger new settlements, both existing and proposed, relieving commuter journeys to Cambridge city: such as is proposed by CBRR’s Route (and failed by EWR Co’s Option E.) * https://inrix.com/press-releases/traffic-congestion-to-cost-the-uk-economy-more-than-300-billion-over-the-next-16-years/

As discussed, new homes must be integrated into existing and proposed public transport networks, otherwise the negative externalities resulting from increased commuter journey times will undermine economic growth, productivity, social well being and attempts to protect the environment.

Not at all important

(1) Strongly disagree (this option not offered) (2) Despite the sub-region’s potential for continued growth at a rate significantly above the national average, due to the attractiveness of Cambridge as a place to live and work, to plan for a greater level of growth over the next Plan period would be unsustainable and would impact negatively on the very qualities that make the area a world class location for education, research and business. It would undermine environmental, economic and social planning objectives as the negative impacts of an overheating economy, already affecting the sub-area, worsen. (3) Taking the need to address existing negative externalities of growth in account, the standard method for calculating the minimum number of homes is appropriate. Higher numbers will most certainly lead to decreased productivity and cannot be achieved at the same time as sustainable development objectives. (4) Further, it would sacrifice much Best and Most Versatile agricultural land; the rainwater run-off would significantly increase; the already depleted and suffering aquifers would be further challenged; the loss of biodiversity would be significant.

(1) Major new housing developments should be built around existing public transport hubs or where supported by proposed multi-modal public transport interchanges including heavy rail. (2) The East West Railway is an unprecedented opportunity to provide the Greater Cambridge with a new heavy rail line that can encourage a shift from car use and greater use of public transport and cycling. If properly conceived, the rail line can provide for journeys that combine cycling and rail and road and rail (through ‘parkway’ stations). (3) However, this opportunity could be lost because the decision on the route alignment for the EWR central section is wholly divorced from the Local Plan process. (4) As it stands, the decision on the route of the central section has been made by the railway operator entirely outside the Plan led system. In so doing, sustainable development objectives including the need to reduce car use will have been overridden by the company’s business case. (5) The choice of route will potentially have the greatest impact on the distribution of development across the Greater Cambridge area. To make this key decision separate from the Local Plan process undermines the Greater Cambridge Local Plan at a most fundamental level. (6) Option E announced by EWR Co produces greater destruction of the natural environment than does CBRR’s proposed route, as has been demonstrated by e.g. the Wildlife Trust, whilst providing the least socio-economic benefits for the Greater Cambridge area. The EWR Co proposals are not designed to alleviate road congestion, or to provide commuters with public transport alternatives to the private car. (7) The EWR central section needs to be integrated with other transport networks so as to encourage modal shift locally. EWR Co’s proposal does not do this. Their proposal ignores the need for integrated transport planning in favour of an inter-urban high speed railway that fails to address the area’s transport priorities. (8) 68% of people who work in Cambridge live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire. Your website tells us 202,000 vehicles cross the boundary of Cambridge City daily, in each direction. By providing new station stops in existing commuter settlements in Cambridge’s hinterland the EWR central section is an opportunity to encourage the switch to public transport, improving commuter journey times and thus boosting productivity and economic growth. (9) This is such a monumental decision for the area that divorcing the decision on the central section route from the Local Plan process makes a mockery of the ‘Plan led’ system. It would undermine all fifteen Sustainability Appraisal objectives as well as fragment transport and land use planning. (10) This problem is solved by incorporating the decision on the EWR Central Section route into the GCLP making process. (11) That NSIPs are determined under separate legislation to development plans (Planning Act 2008 and Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 respectively) highlights the degree of fragmentation within the ‘Plan led’ system. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) invariably impact on patterns of land use through effects on land values, transport patterns (freight and people), and the spatial distribution of environmental effects. (12) Notwithstanding the separate legislation, we consider that the planning of NSIPs can be incorporated into the local development plan making process if decision makers have the will to collaborate on this issue. With the GCLP timetabled to be examined in public in 2022 there is sufficient time for agencies to agree a draft Plan that includes the proposed EWR Central Section route alignment as a major component of the Plan. (13) All available route options can then be subject to Sustainability Appraisal alongside decisions on the housing and economic development. (14) The ultimate step of banning private cars from a substantial part of the City Centre will need to be taken one day. The sooner that ban is announced, with a realistic lead time to put into effect the necessary infrastructure and its planning and funding, the better. 2050 will be too late.

Yes

But only if the criterion of ‘more sustainable’ is suitably qualified by a Venn diagram which includes the effect on Planet Earth as a whole, not just on the tiny patch call South Cambridgeshire. (For example, the drive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by a change to plug-in electric cars has a seriously adverse effect on centralised electrical power generation, with its reliance on fossil fuel and 30% energy loss in transmission.)