Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Camcycle is not suggesting sites as we remain neutral on the issue of growth. However, we will strongly object to any sites and developments that do not support and integrate with sustainable transport, not only within the site but also in a well-connected way to the wider sustainable transport network. • Development sites must support the sustainable transport goals of shifting the vast majority of everyday travel out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. • If it is not possible to produce a realistic Transport Assessment achieving that goal, then the site must be rejected. • It is important that sustainable transport is not only considered within the site but also the connections to the transport network and other sites. • Transport cannot be looked at in a silo. Transport, including cycling, is integral to planning of new developments and must be considered from the very start. • To reduce car usage within the site also requires reducing the amount of land, money and resources devoted to subsidising car ownership and driving (Manville, 2017).

No answer given

Site 46192 map

No uploaded files for public display

Disagree

According to the IPCC, we need to greatly reduce CO2 emissions well before 2030 (IPCC, 2018). • Given that a climate emergency has been declared by both the South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridge City Council we urge them to take swift action to transition the Cambridge region to sustainable transport including cycling. • Local Plan strategies for cycling and public transportation (which include understanding where and how new developments should be located and designed) must assume a radical shift away from cars well before 2040. • Therefore, very powerful decarbonisation and demotorisation strategies need to be implemented within the next 5–10 years, and on development proposals this needs to occur straight away. Planning for 2040 will be too late. “Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence) [. . .] Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).” (IPCC, 2018) “Incentives alone may not be enough to encourage developers to incorporate higher sustainability standards. Therefore it is essential that strong climate change mitigation and adaptation policies are developed as part of the Local Development Framework. Policies should set specific targets as far as it is reasonable to do so. They should also be future proofed as far as possible, for rising standards over time, especially for large sites with long build out periods, so that they do not become rapidly out of date.” (Cambridge City Council, 2009)

Agree

No answer given

• One of the best ways the Local Plan can help us achieve net zero carbon by 2050 is by ensuring a rapid transition to sustainable transport. How and where we plan our new developments and integrate them with existing developments will be critical to enabling that transition at the scale we require. • Every development must prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over private cars (including electric cars). • Developments in Cambridge and the surrounding area should be required to plan for at least 40% of short/medium-distance trips to be taken by pedal cycle or electrically-assisted pedal cycle, comparable to role model cities in the Netherlands (Sutton, 2017). • New developments must be planned around dense walking and cycling networks and local transport hubs (not car-reliant park & rides). • Walking and cycling networks must be in place before dwellings are occupied. • New and existing developments should seek to minimise car usage, prevent rat-running, and keep neighbourhood streets compact to reduce their negative impact. • Housing should be on quiet neighbourhood streets that are good for cycling because they have very low levels of car traffic. • Schools should never be on major roads. • All employment, entertainment, shopping and community facilities should be easily accessed by cycling and have accessible cycle parking for all types of cycle. “If the EU cycling rate was the same as it is in Denmark, where the average person cycles almost 600 miles (965km) each year, then the bloc would attain anything from 12% to 26% of its targeted transport emissions reduction, depending on what forms of transport the cycling replaced.” (Walker, 2011) “[When] evaluating different transport modes, it is the bicycle that allows for important greenhouse gas savings. Although not a carbon free mode of transport, the bicycle’s [greenhouse gas] emissions are over 10 times lower than those stemming from individual motorized transport. pedelecs, despite their electric assistance, are also found to have greenhouse gas emissions in the same range as ordinary bicycles.” (Blondel, 2011) “Public transport, walking and cycling have a key role in tackling carbon emissions, as well as delivering the co-benefits of decarbonisation such as cleaner air and a healthier society.” (HM Government, 2019) “In 76 cities in the Netherlands (municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants), the inhabitants travel for trips up to 7.5 km more often by bicycle than by car. [. . .] At the larger distances, between 7.5 and 15 kilometers, the bicycle share of residents is still substantial. At longer regional distance, bicycles and e-bikes currently capture one-third of the bike/car mode split.” (te Avest, 2017) Evidence for our response to Question 8. • Walker, Peter (2011). EU could cut its transport greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25% if every country’s cycling rate was the same as Denmark’s. The Guardian: Dec 12th, 2011. www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/12/cycle-like-danes-cut-emissions • Benoît Blondel, et al (2011). Cycle more often to cool down the planet!. European Cyclists’ Federation. • HM Government (2019). Leading on Clean Growth: The Government Response to the Committee on Climate Change’s 2019 Progress Report to Parliament — Reducing UK emissions. • Sutton, Mark (2017). Netherlands further builds on cycling’s modal share, hitting 51% in Utrecht. cyclingindustry.news/netherlands-further-builds-on-cyclings-modal-share-hitting51-in-utrecht/ • te Avest, Richard (2017). Bicycle gains ground on car, also outside the big cities(translated). www.goudappel.nl/actueel/fietse-bike-verovert-terrein-op-auto-%C3%B3%C3%B3k-buitende-grote-steden/.

Broad aspirations about reducing our impact on the climate must be translated into specific planning policies and subsequent development that will prioritise, enable and encourage cycling. • Land-use planning goes hand-in-hand with sustainable transport. Any significant development must have a mix of uses including accommodation, amenity, education, and employment — to give people a chance to access everyday needs without travelling far. • The Local Plan, in every aspect, needs to enable and encourage a full-scale transition away from private car dependency and towards walking, cycling and public transport. Every development must be fully permeable with safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling routes. We should plan for a sharp curtailment of car usage in new and existing developments. • The amount of land devoted to car parking and roads should be reduced in favour of more space for trees and plantings, which will help to absorb carbon and make our streets nicer places. They will also help keep us cool and shaded as temperatures rise. Having shady trees to cycle under in the summer will make cycling a more enjoyable experience and will encourage more people to cycle. “A reduction of close to 2% in [Greenhouse Gas (GHG)] emissions is observed for an increase of 7% in the length of the bicycle network. Results show the important benefits of bicycle infrastructure to reduce commuting automobile usage and GHG emissions.” (Zahabi, 2016) “For residents living near the Comox Greenway, their daily transportation GHG emissions decreased by 20.90% after the greenway’s construction. Adjusting for covariates and the control group, the greenway was associated with a significant reduction of -0.40 kg CO2e/day and -5.30 MJ/day (p = 0.001). The change in emissions was attributed to a reduction in [vehicle-kilometres-travelled (VKT)], enabled through the provision of high-quality active transportation infrastructure through cycling facilities and other streetscape improvements.” (Ngo, 2018) “If done well, reducing sprawl can improve quality of life while reducing emissions. Successful approaches likely differ among cities, especially between developing versus developed countries. In some cases, improving urban schools or reducing crime rates would decrease migration to suburbs and exurbs. Other cities may need to increase the supply of affordable, attractive medium- and high-density housing. Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, convenient mass transit, and land-use mixing (e.g., allowing retail near residences) can allow people to drive less each day if they wish (potentially increasing the density-VKT elasticity magnitude).” (Marshall, 2008) Evidence for our response to Question 9. • Zahabi, Seyed Amir H., et al (2016). Exploring the link between the neighborhood typologies, bicycle infrastructure and commuting cycling over time and the potential impact on commuter GHG emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 47. • Ngo, Victor Douglas, et al (2018). Effects of new urban greenways on transportation energy use and greenhouse gas emissions: A longitudinal study from Vancouver, Canada. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 62. • Marshall, Julian D. (2008). Reducing urban sprawl could play an important role in addressing climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 9, 3133–3137.

• Parks should be linked up with safe and convenient walking and cycling routes to each other and to all the residential neighbourhoods surrounding them. • Parks within the built-up area should be overlooked by houses and shops, with a welcoming design that encourages interaction with the surrounding community, and which feels safe throughout the day. • Giving people access to green spaces will increase their connection with nature and desire to protect it as well as improving health and wellbeing. Cycling access to these areas is one way to improve public access to the natural environment. • Reducing the amount of road and parking space needed for cars will provide more space for greenery and green corridors in our region. “Evaluation of programmes for encouraging exercise indicates that attractive, green environments close to the home or work provide the best opportunities to encourage daily exercise, walking or cycling. People also keep exercising longer in natural surroundings. The effect on children seems particularly marked. Children who have easy access to safe greenspaces (parks, playgrounds, kickabout areas) are more likely to be physically active than those who are not so close, and this has apositive effect on health, particularly for those from low income families” (Barton, 2009) Evidence for our response to Question 13. • Barton, Hugh (2009). Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy.

Yes, strongly agree

• We should aim to increase tree cover by planting trees in a way that complements cycling, creating safe, attractive and tree-lined routes. • Cycleways separated from car lanes by trees or shrubbery are ideal and Camcycle would support more of this.

• Accessible transport is vital for wellbeing and inclusion in our community. • Lack of access to transport (due to affordability, unreliability or the non-existence of transport options) is preventing people from accessing education, work and social opportunities. • Safe, convenient and high-quality cycling infrastructure is fully accessible to people of all ages and abilities. That means more people will be able to cycle, leading to more social inclusion for people who cannot afford to drive or use public transport. • Accessible cycling infrastructure means more children and people with mobility issues will be able to move freely around our region. • Inclusive cycle parking design standards will provide places for people to securely park their larger or adapted cycles. Properly designed cycling infrastructure can also be well-utilised by people on mobility scooters, electric wheelchairs, wheelchairs and other mobility aids. • Some forms of transport can have negative impacts on wellbeing and inclusion. Living near motorways and busy roads reduces well-being. Housing should be designed to be on quiet, local roads with a minimum of motor-traffic. Schools should never be on major roads. • Busy roads are polluted, noisy, and unsafe. They divide communities and trap people in their homes. Planning policies must not allow busy roads to harm communities in the future, and should help fix this problem in existing developments. • Making walking and cycling safer and more accessible will allow children to travel independently from their parents at an earlier age leading to improved emotional resilience. “Bicycling allows the user to explore their spatial surroundings and offers constant opportunity for spontaneous interaction with other users and the surrounding environment.” (te Brömmelstroet, 2017) “Many disabled people use cycles as a mobility aid, and many more would do so if the conditions were appropriate. People may be able to cycle perfectly well, but not stand unaided, cycle on two wheels, lift their cycles, or carry associated cycling gear off the cycle.” (Parkin, 2018) “According to Transport for London (TfL), in London alone 12% of Disabled people cycle regularly or occasionally, compared to 17% of non-Disabled people.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “If we make cycling facilities inclusive of all types of cycles — and ensure transport modes are integrated and made accessible — more disabled people will make the choice of travelling actively.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “Although not all neighbors wish to participate in street communities, streets should be places where communal life is possible and where it can happen if street dwellers want it to.” (Appleyard, 1980) “People living nearer to the new M74 motorway tended to experience poorer mental wellbeing over time than those living further away. We saw a similar pattern in the M8 area, but here it was concentrated among people living with a chronic illness or disability.” (Ogilvie, 2017) “When it comes to the most important major schemes, the reality for some local authorities has been a reluctance to insist on conditions that they think might deter developers who offer economic regeneration. In other cases where planning officials and elected representatives have approved plans for obviously car-dependent development it seems they could not envision what the alternative might look like, or failed to appreciate the accumulated evidence of the collateral damage that a car-dependent society brings in the shape of congestion, environmental degradation and social ill health.” (Taylor, 2011) Evidence for our response to Question 16. • te Brömmelstroet, Marco et al. (2017). Travelling together alone and alone together: mobility and potential exposure to diversity. Applied Mobilities, 2:1, 1-15. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Appleyard, Donald (1980). Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods?. Annals, AAPSS, 451. • Ogilvie D, Foley L, et al (2017). Health impacts of the M74 urban motorway extension: a mixedmethod natural experimental study. Public Health Res; 5: 3. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning.

• Camcycle has extensive experience of working with the planning system and we know that it is incredibly difficult for people to engage with and respond to planning applications and consultations. • If the Local Plan is to encourage more community participation then the systems used must be improved. • Simple things like determining the closure date of consultations or which document should be looked at for a summary of the planning application are too difficult with the current system let alone having sensible approaches to engagement. • Seeing the difference in quality and liveability of development of Marmalade Lane vs most other developments in the Cambridge region shows just how much more liveable and sustainable our developments can be when the community and the people who will live in the developments are involved in the design. • Out of town developers, concerned with profit above all else, frequently underestimate the needs of people who cycling, the number of people who will cycle and the extent of provision of cycling facilities. • Ensuring local people can contribute to these consultations and taking the contributions of organisations like Camcycle seriously can prevent the issues that arise from underprovision. Stronger planning policies developed with extensive community consultation will also help with these issues.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are treated as primary features of any development, not merely as afterthoughts that are relegated to poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways intended for general-purpose travel should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • Homes should always have safe cycle routes to schools and parks, suitable for children. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users. • The cycle route network should connect people with everyday needs such as work, school, shops, surgeries and parks; the routes should pass in front of buildings and through places with natural surveillance to assure personal safety, and they should be fully accessible to people of all abilities. “As one example, the ‘Living First’ campaign in Vancouver required high-density neighborhoods to be aesthetically pleasant and full of amenities (e.g., easy access to parks, child-care facilities, and grocery stores; streetscapes with shops and row housing rather than blank high-rise walls; and safe, convenient mass-transit and pedestrian facilities). The resulting neighborhoods benefit not only CO2 emissions (two-thirds of trips are by mass transit, bicycle, or walking) but also public health: by reducing automobile usage, compact development also reduces traffic fatalities and obesity).” (Marshall, 2008) “Where good quality sustainable transport options are integrated into development at the planning stage or at the time of major investment they are well-used. Attempting to ‘retro-fit’ sustainable transport into existing conventional development is much more difficult as travel habits have already been established.” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2015) “The quality and safety of the pedestrian and cycling environment is important—particularly the perception of these things. Parental consent for children to walk or cycle to school, friends or playground is notoriously low in the UK by comparison with much of Europe, due to real or perceived traffic and stranger danger. Children’s freedom to roam has been curtailed. Physical improvement to route continuity, directness, safety, informal surveillance and aesthetic quality is a part of any strategy to change perceptions and culture.” (Barton, 2009) “The starting point for designing cycle facilities within the compass of Sustainable Traffic Safety is ‘Design for All’. Cyclists have few standard characteristics. On the contrary, cyclists in the Netherlands are a variegated bunch, in terms of age, sex, physical fitness and reasons for travelling.” (CROW, 2017, p. 28) “At the most basic level, inclusive cycle infrastructure should be step-free, offer a continuous and uninterrupted journey, and have clear and accessible wayfinding.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “For the same reason that carriageways are illuminated, so too do cycleways need to be illuminated. This is especially the case if they are designed for purposeful travel, such as year-round commuting.” (Parkin, 2018) Evidence for our response to Question 18. • Marshall, Julian D. (2008). Reducing urban sprawl could play an important role in addressing climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 9, 3133–3137. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • CROW (1996–2017). The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW-Fietsberaad. Ede, Nederland. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Barton, Hugh (2009). Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing.