Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Safe, convenient and high-quality cycle routes everywhere, providing everyone with the opportunity to safely cycle for everyday transport purposes if they want, or to combine cycling with public transport. Evidence for our response to Question 38. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Foletta, Nicole (2014). Case Study: Houten. ITDP Europe. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • Bruntlett, Melissa and Bruntlett, Chris (2018). Building the Cycling City: The Dutch Blueprint for Urban Vitality. Island Press.

[putting response to question 42 here since your website doesn't allow freeform responses to 42] We are not going to rank options, only point out that sites and developers should be chosen on their ability to satisfy sustainable transport goals and shift the overwhelming majority of everyday journeys out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. If a realistic Transport Assessment cannot achieve that goal then the site is not suitable for development. Furthermore, we note that location and compact development is only part of the story: to reduce car usage you cannot give away money, land and resources in ways that enable unnecessary usage of cars (Manville, 2017). “The first and most fundamental choice is the overall location of a development in relation to urban centres and transport corridors. Studies confirm the common-sense expectation that travel habits are strongly influenced by the type of transport corridor that is closest, and that developments situated adjacent to or within the nearest conurbation have lower car use.” (Taylor, 2011) “Location of new housing, with a focus on walking distance to major public transport links and existing urban centres, as well as ensuring easy access to public transport and cycle networks both existing and planned” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2015) “Given a mixed-use, compact land-use pattern, an integrated combination of high-quality public transport, walking, and cycling conditions can out-compete the car, gaining back some of the modal share they lost from 1960 to 1990.” (Buehler, 2017) Evidence for our response to Question 42. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi (2017). Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transport Reviews, 37:1, 4-28, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799 • Michael Manville (2017). Travel and the Built Environment: Time for Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83:1, 29-32, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1249508

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is repeatedly ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. However, it has clearly grown a bit unwieldy over the years, being spread across two documents in such a fashion. Furthermore, neither document accounts for inclusive cycle parking. Therefore, the cycle parking policies should be refactored, brought up to date with inclusive guidance, and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. There are numerous points that are poorly defined by the current Local Plan, including problems with diagonal cycle parking, multi-car garages, different types of cycle sheds, and two-tier racks. • The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking. • The observations and recommendations of Carmona (2020) should be given strong consideration as we develop the future Local Plan. Evidence for our response to Question 49. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

• Policies in the Local Plan must protect existing cycle routes from being harmed by development, both during construction and after completion of the development. The convenience, safety and quality of cycle routes must be maintained or improved by development in their vicinity. In particular, we can think of two motivating types of examples: (1) where works to the highway cut through a cycleway or cycle route and degrade its quality or accessibility, it must be fixed; (2) landowners, leaseholders or statutory undertakers must not be allowed to install barriers or obstacles into cycle routes such as fences or poles; cycle routes should be protected either as public rights-of-way or under terms of access that forbid such alterations. • Developments should commit to implementing the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) as they come forward, building up the cycling network in the city and district. • Maintenance and protection of cycle routes is a theme that has not come forward yet. Transport Assessments and Travel Plans should include commitments to clean, clear, de-ice and maintain the usability and accessibility of cycle routes. • The cycling network is just as strategic as the public highway network and must be protected in the same way. In some cases, the cycling network is part of the public highway network, but where it is not, some other method of protection must be sought. This is necessary in order to achieve carbon reduction, air quality, placemaking and congestion reduction goals. [Note for the reviewer: we will send a PDF copy of all our responses, attached to an email, that is easier to read]

Please take careful consideration of the contributions from Camcycle and include them in ongoing development on the Local Plan. In addition to widespread consultation, you should be hosting workshops on specific topics, and bringing in expertise from the local community regarding matters such as cycle parking design.

Question 2: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 response: 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). “Providing the choice of sustainable transport alongside conventional car-based options is insuffcient to change travel habits. This makes essential the constraint of car use through location, development design and planning requirements [...] Where new urban extensions or new towns are an acceptable or appropriate option, particular attention must be paid to locating the development where it can access public transport networks; designing it to be pedestrian, cycle and public transport friendly; and tackling journeys to work and school generated by the new development.” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2015) “Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna, and Zurich — the largest cities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland — have significantly reduced the car share of trips over the past 25 years in spite of high motorisation rates. The key to their success has been a coordinated package of mutually reinforcing transport and landuse policies that have made car use slower, less convenient, and more costly, while increasing the safety, convenience, and feasibility of walking, cycling, and public transport.” (Buehler, 2017) “Governments give drivers free land; people as a result drive more than they otherwise would. That’s it. The rest is commentary.” (Manville, 2017) Evidence for our response to Question 2. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi (2017). Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transport Reviews, 37:1, 4-28, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799 • Michael Manville (2017). Travel and the Built Environment: Time for Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83:1, 29-32, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1249508

No uploaded files for public display

Nothing chosen

• 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) Evidence for our response to Question 4. • IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments.

• 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 Question8. •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 a positive 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.