Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Neither agree nor disagree

Camcycle welcomes the vision and principles which focus on a place for everyone with everything they need nearby, beautiful buildings and green spaces, and good links with surrounding areas. The guidelines support the type of development needed to help more people to walk and cycle. More people walking and cycling would help the local councils create a safe and collaborative district with healthy people and a strong community which will lead the way to a zero-carbon future. However, the details given in the longer Area Action Plan and supporting documents do not give confidence that this vision will be implemented successfully. The density and nature of the site has been determined by government funding, transport plans rely heavily on the delivery of schemes by other authorities (such as CAM metro) which may not be delivered in time, and the aim of creating a mixed-use site across the whole area has been lost due to the balance of power lying with landowners over the local community. Relying on developers to deliver the plan is also too risky: existing construction and applications for the area are already posing a threat to the vision as a whole. Lessons must be learnt from other developments across Cambridge and we support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realised.

Mostly yes

Breaking down the barriers to cycling and walking into the area is extremely important, so we strongly support new crossings of the guided busway and Milton Road and links to Milton village and the river. We also support the new area being developed around key walking and cycling routes which link up destinations within the site (such as the new local centres) and outside it (such as the direct traffic-free route between Nuffield Road and Milton Country Park). However, there are some urgent issues on the boundaries of the site which will need addressing to ensure walking and cycling are safe and convenient for all ages and abilities and that problems with excessive levels of motor traffic do not cause issues either inside or outside the new area. Existing schemes such as the Chisholm Trail, Milton Road and Waterbeach Greenway are unlikely to be sufficient for the volume of journeys generated by a new area where 75% of journeys are anticipated to be by foot, cycle or public transport. Immediate action to reduce traffic levels in the north of the city is needed to meet and exceed the plan’s trip budgets for motor vehicles and to enable high levels of walking and cycling before, during, and after development. This must include alternative road access out from Chesterton Fen (perhaps in the location already specified for a foot/cycle bridge over the railway), improvements to the Jane Coston bridge as well as the streets approaching it, improvements and regular maintenance of the Halingway towpath and improvements to the road junction and active travel routes around Cambridge Regional College.

Neutral

We support the new centres being located at the junctions of strategic cycling and walking routes which will help the district’s residents access facilities safely and easily. We also support the main district centre being located on a key route from Milton to East Chesterton and close to the Busway cycleway. This will mean that the library, health centre and arts hub are easily accessible and therefore of great benefit to surrounding communities. We support the recommendation that no single proposal for retail or services should be permitted if it is large enough to generate need for a car park, but generous amounts of secure cycle parking should be provided at centres along with shuttle bus stops and space for disabled car parking. There is a lack of sports and leisure facilities such as a swimming pool – an ideal place for these would be close to the station and bus terminus to allow easy car-free access for people travelling from outside the new district. The Science Park local centre should be located further away from King’s Hedges Road and the main western access road into the site to improve safety for people walking and cycling and avoid attracting drive-past visitors. There is a noticeable lack of facilities within the west of the site which will remain a business-led Science Park with no housing or even a concert venue (which could double as a conference venue).This will mean it will remain quiet at night and may feel unsafe for people walking and cycling. We also support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to relocate industrial units and the aggregates railhead to the north-east corner of the site with a separate industrial access road added alongside the A14, which would remove large amounts of heavy traffic from the main route through the district.

Mostly not

The development of North East Cambridge should not create demand for more housing elsewhere as that will increase the likelihood that these journeys will be made by non-sustainable means. Given that many members of households won’t be in employment, 20,000 jobs seems too high when set against 8,000 homes. To maximise the number of trips which can be made within the area by walking, cycling or public transport, data from the Transport Evidence Base (page 109) shows that the level of housing must be increased or the number of jobs decreased. Not all jobs will require office, retail or industrial space and this, plus changing work patterns (such as home working or hot-desking), should be taken into account. The build-out of employment and housing land parcels should be carefully phased to maintain balance in housing demand at every stage of the development (an issue because most housing cannot be delivered until the relocation of the water treatment works). Camcycle welcomes the diverse range of jobs on the site and the mixed-use spaces: this means that more people will be able to access nearby employment on foot or by cycle and be able to use cycles to support their business e.g. for deliveries or carrying equipment.

Mostly not

Camcycle supports schools being located on key walking and cycling routes and away from main roads. This will help children travel to school safely and begin to travel there independently when they are old enough to do so. We think it’s likely that a secondary school will be needed – this should be planned well in advance of need, alongside other services such as health centres and leisure facilities. All services should feel safe to walk or cycle to in all seasons and at all times of day. Lessons should be learnt from other developments in Cambridge: if services (including transport links, cycle hire and car clubs) are not in place before residents move in, car-dependency will become locked in. Care should be taken to maintain high-quality walking and cycling access throughout the different periods of construction, including to any ‘meanwhile projects’ on the site or in surrounding communities.

Neutral

Camcycle supports plans to ensure that development proposals create a well-articulated and varied skyline which is pleasant and attractive to travel through at street level on foot or by cycle, and contributes to making a place that is easy to find your way around. We also support the mixed-use nature of the area and individual buildings which will help ensure that people have the opportunity to make everyday journeys without driving and that the district’s walking and cycling routes have good levels of natural surveillance at all times of the day and night. We note that the high densities in the eastern part of the site seem to have been made necessary by the restrictions made on land-use in the western part of the site. This puts pressure on the public realm; for example cycleways are unlikely to be built wider than the 2.5m minimum, even where volumes of cycle traffic would require it, and green space is more limited than it should be. Choices should never be made between pavements, cycleways and green space: these should be the aspects the site is built around and the whole area should be as mixed-use as possible to make cycling and walking the natural choice for all short journeys. Density should be determined by factors such as liveability and local typology rather than external pressures which could lead to overdevelopment of the land. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects.

Mostly not

Camcycle supports new green spaces along key walking and cycling routes and plans for a 3.5m landscaped verge (this should be the minimum) between the carriageway and cycleway on primary streets. We also support small neighbourhood greens and playspaces throughout the development so that every resident is able to access a green space area on foot and those without individual gardens have such places nearby to benefit their physical and mental health. Better cycling and walking links to existing green spaces will help residents of all ages and abilities connect with the natural world and boost their wellbeing; however spaces in this area of the city, such as Milton Country Park, are already overstretched. We agree with Cambridge Past, Present and Future that there is need for a significant large open space within the development and support Milton Country Park’s suggestion to expand the amount of green space north of the village with a biodiverse corridor to Waterbeach (including cycleways) which could include a new Sport Lakes facility. We also note that active travel routes along the river are likely to become more crowded; closing the level crossing to motor traffic (with alternative road access elsewhere) would open up Fen Road as a pleasant cycle route and free up space for people walking along the towpath.

Mostly yes

It is important that existing havens for biodiversity in the area (such as those alongside the guided busway and Cowley Road cycle and walking routes) are safeguarded as well as additional measures undertaken to increase biodiversity across the site. We recommend that the land area used to build new cycleways necessitated by the development because of the development is matched by a similar sized area of land improved to increase biodiversity, either within the district or at sites nearby.

Mostly not

Camcycle welcomes the ambition to make North East Cambridge a place where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport and the street hierarchy and designs seem to support this goal. It is important that high-quality routes continue to and across the edge of the area (including junctions) and connect up with external cycle routes for onward journeys to maximise the number of longer trips made by cycle. However, we have concerns about the ability of the planning service to ensure consistent quality of routes and facilities across a site which encompasses several different landowners and developers. The addition of qualifiers gives tempting get-out clauses for things which must be in place to prioritise active travel (for example, ‘Where possible [cycle parking should provide] sufficient space within which to easily manoeuvre cycles of all types’ on p198 of the Draft Area Action Plan or ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’ in the Transport Evidence Base). Cycling must be safe, convenient and attractive to enable people to switch from driving and the get-out clauses should be removed. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan – measures such as an internal shuttle bus will be essential to achieve trip budgets and help those who can’t walk or cycle get around without a car. Trip budgets also rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. It is unacceptable to require additional Park & Ride capacity which will simply push additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. Rather than begin with existing Local Plan guidelines on car parking spaces and assume that private car ownership will continue to be the default for half the new households, the Area Action Plan should set realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. Spacing of vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading should be designed to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. The whole development should support every aspect of a zero-carbon lifestyle.

Neutral

The transport sector is the largest contributor to carbon emissions in the UK and it will be a challenge to achieve a modal shift in north Cambridge from a situation where 71% of trips are made by car to one where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport. Public transport itself is unlikely to be zero-carbon for some time. Therefore, it’s important that other aspects of the development create as few emissions as possible: for example, buildings should be designed to be carbon-negative. The area’s vision should not be for a ‘low-carbon’ district which is too vague for developer commitments: specific targets in terms of carbon emissions should be set for each aspect of the site. The Climate Change paper (p12) notes that significant reinforcement will be needed to the electricity grid to support the development, including increased use of renewable energy and infrastructure such as electric vehicle chargepoints: these will be needed throughout the site for e-bikes as well as cars to enable people of all ages and abilities to travel by cycle. In terms of climate adaptivity, it will also be important to consider flooding: drainage should be managed in such a way that cycle and walking routes are not disrupted in the case of a 100-year rain event and remain clear and accessible at all times. Finally, we note that the trip budgets have been calculated based on the ability of the local highway network to support levels of car usage at peak times rather than the reductions of transport emissions needed to support local authorities’ journey to zero carbon. Trip budgets, car parking allocations and other car use metrics should begin with the carbon budget for travel not the maximum acceptable level of congestion and pollution.