Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Very flexible

• We should be very flexible about the uses we allow in our city, town, district, local and village centres. Communities should provide a diverse range of employment, shopping, leisure and educational opportunities as close as reasonably possible to homes to enable shorter and more sustainable journeys. • The Local Plan should embrace the notion of ‘compact development’ that reduces the distance that people have to travel for typical everyday needs, keeping them within easy cycling reach. “Hidalgo has been leading a radical overhaul of the city’s mobility culture since taking office in 2014, and has already barred the most polluting vehicles from entry, banished cars from the Seine quayside and reclaimed road space for trees and pedestrians. Now, she says, Paris needs to go one step further and remodel itself so that residents can have all their needs met—be they for work, shopping, health, or culture—within 15 minutes of their own doorstep.” (O’Sullivan, 2020) “The meta-analysis shows that mode share and likelihood of walking trips are most strongly associated with the design and diversity dimensions of built environments. Intersection density, jobshousing balance, and distance to stores have the greatest elasticities.” (Ewing, 2010) Evidence for our response to Question29. • O’Sullivan, Feargus (2020). Paris Mayor: It’s Time for a‘15-Minute City’. City Lab: Feb 18th, 2020. www.citylab.com/environment/2020/02/paris-election-anne-hidalgo-city-planning-walksstores-parks/606325/ • Ewing,Reid and Cervero, Robert (2010). Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association,76:3,265-294.

• Poor standards of cycle parking prevent people from cycling. Accessible, high-quality, secure and plentiful cycle parking is a critical element of high-standard housing and will enable more people to cycle regularly. • Good cycle parking is a factor in house buying and renting decisions. • Cycle parking standards (Cambridge City Council, 2010) must be updated to increase the number of cycle parking spaces required for developments, and the design standards have to be updated with modern, inclusive cycle parking specifications (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • Cycle parking policies must be absolutely clear about the need for accessible cycle stands that can be used by people of all abilities and specific about the design and installation requirements (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • There must be a proportion of cycle stands that are suitable for cargo cycles, tricycles, adapted cycles and recumbents (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • Vertical and semi-vertical cycle parking racks must be absolutely prohibited (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • Two-tier racks must not be allowed for residential uses, and must be accompanied by a suitable proportion of Sheffield stands in non-residential uses for people who cannot use the two-tier racks. • Cycle parking should never be referred to as ‘cycle storage’, because ‘parking’ implies frequent usage and ‘storage’ does not; we want the design of cycle parking to be as convenient as possible in order to enable frequent usage. • Cycle parking should be at least as close to entry doors as any car parking. Convenience for everyday usage is paramount. • Highways design and car storage arrangements must not be allowed to dominate the design of housing (Carmona, 2020). “[A] lack of [parking] for bicycles can make this highly sustainable and healthy mode of travel all but impossible for residents.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 35. • Cambridge City Council (2010). The Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments. Transport Initiatives, LLP. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. See Parkin (2018), Dales (2014) and Wheels for Wellbeing (2019) for details. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become barriers for walking or cycling. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • The development of railway stations and the railway network should typically be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. [The following items are ‘lessons learnt’ from the Orchard Park development] • “Do not over provide for motorised traffic with multi-lane junctions at accesses into residential developments. • Good quality cycling facilities, such as designated cycle lanes and segregated routes both within a development and linking to external routes, as well as cycle parking/storage facilities, need to be in place when residents move in to achieve the highest possible usage. If proposed routes are not in place on a permanent basis from the start, some provision for temporary or interim measures should be made. • Any changes to the road network associated with new developments should not be to the detriment of existing cyclists and should improve existing routes where possible. • There should be more discussion between parties at an early stage in the planning process. Consultation on changes to junctions as part of section 106 agreements should include all relevant stakeholders, and the Cycle Liaison Group should further develop its focus on new developments. • Continuous footways should be provided alongside carriageways where possible.” (Cambridge City Council, 2009) “To achieve a society-wide move towards sustainable travel patterns it will be essential to make better use of better public transport for medium and long journeys. But it will also be necessary to create a virtuous circle where development design that encourages public transport also encourages the most sustainable of all modes of travel for shorter journeys — walking and cycling. This mutually complementary approach is possible because what is good for public transport use can also be good for walking and cycling: all public transport journeys also involve shorter trips to and from public transport, for which development design can encourage access on foot or by bike.” (Taylor, 2011) “The cities with the highest cycling levels, and those that have successfully grown cycling levels over relatively short periods, generally afford cycling good physical protection or effective spatial separation from motor traffic, unless traffic speeds and volumes are low.” (Dales, 2014) “The Dutch ‘street hierarchy’ strongly reduces cyclists’ exposure to motorised traffic by shifting vehicles away from where there is a lot of cycling. [...] Since the 1970s, the Netherlands has achieved an 80% reduction in cyclist’s fatality rate and is now, together with Denmark, the safest country in which to ride a bicycle.” (Schepers, 2017) “Personal safety is undeniably linked with the organization of the space. In places and on connections where there are lots of people, and therefore plenty of monitoring, there is a greater sense of safety. [...] [It] is best to route cycle routes as much as possible through areas where social activities take place, preferably in the evenings as well. [...] In addition, a cycle route through a suburb which passes the front doors of homes will be much more socially pleasant than one passing fenced-off back gardens.” (CROW, 2017) “A fundamental objective of good urban design is to connect the built environment. Analytical approaches such as Space Syntax have long demonstrated that if residential environments are well connected both visually and physically (what is often referred to as permeable) then they will facilitate more active travel, social exchange and connections, economic opportunities (e.g. for shops and cafes) and a safer built environment with less crime. Connecting new developments to their surroundings allows them to become part of a larger urban area (city, town or village) rather than operating as isolated enclaves.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 36. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • Schepers, et al (2017). The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety. Safety Science 92. • 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. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

• Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. • Any new railway lines or stations must include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. • The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them (Parkin, 2018). • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point (Parkin, 2018). • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross minor roads. • Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. • New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. Redeveloped sites should be reducing car traffic compared to their previous use. • Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. • Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. • Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. • All national rail routes, rural bus routes, the Busway, and the future Metro, should include some services that can carry bicycles along with passengers. There should be ways for people with adapted cycles to take their mobility aid on public transport. • Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. • The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport. “A comparison of residential development around Oxford, showed that new housing located near a motorway junction had higher car use than estates with good bus or train links. Subsequent work showed that all of these estates outside of Oxford have in fact generated higher car use than a new estate built on brownfield land within Oxford itself (53% of trips were by car for the infill estate, compared with an average of 82% for the estates outside the town).” (Taylor, 2011) “[Our] findings indicate that the partially-implemented London mini-Hollands programme has been effective in increasing active travel and improving perceptions of the local environment.” (Aldred, 2019) “[By] far, the most popular mode of travel for trips made within the city is cycling. The majority of Houten residents travel to the grocery store (53%), conduct other shopping (70%), run service related errands like visiting the bank or barber (79%) and visit friends and family in Houten (79%) by bike or on foot. [...] Overall, more than half of all trips made by Houten residents (55%) are made by non-motorized modes of travel, which is higher than for the city of Zeist (43%) and Milton Keynes (20%). Further, higher proportions of trips made by Milton Keynes (70%) and Zeist residents (46%) are by car than for the city of Houten (34%). A further study found that 42% of trips shorter than 7.5 kilometers in Houten are made by bike, and around 21% by foot.” (Foletta, 2014) “Street layout and design standards should focus on 20mph maximum speeds, ‘home zone’ street design and a network of safe, convenient and attractive routes for cycling and pedestrians.” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2019) “Turning streets from vehicle dominant to pedestrian and cycle friendly spaces involves slowing vehicle speeds (through design), designing parking to avoid conflicts, introducing cycle infrastructure and high quality pavements, and providing attractive street spaces with sufficient street furniture for rest and relaxation.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 37. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • 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. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Aldred, Rachel et al (2019). Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context. Transportation Research Part A 123. • 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.

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.

No choices made

Q42 Response: 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.

Summary of Comments: The Local Plan must enable and encourage cycling for all ages and abilities in all developments, and ensure high-quality, convenient and safe cycling infrastructure is put into place. Car usage must be restrained and reduced; transport demand must be satisfied using sustainable modes in order to achieve the goals of meeting the climate challenge, creating better places with stronger biodiversity and social inclusion.

No uploaded files for public display

Nothing chosen

"[Note for the reviewer: we will send a PDF copy of all our responses, attached to an email, that is easier to read; if you need help finding referenced papers please get in touch] 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."