Waterbeach New Town SPD

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 357

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167269

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs. Sophie Hyde

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access

Lots of mention of walking and cycling routes, but no mention of bridleways / horse access - why? Designing these routes to be inclusive of equestrians as well as other leisure users helps to reduce accidents by getting horses off of our highways. That means designing paths with sufficient width for everyone to pass safely, and specifying an appropriate surface. Equestrians are just a vulnerable on the roads as cyclists are.

Full text:

Lots of mention of walking and cycling routes, but no mention of bridleways / horse access - why? Designing these routes to be inclusive of equestrians as well as other leisure users helps to reduce accidents by getting horses off of our highways. That means designing paths with sufficient width for everyone to pass safely, and specifying an appropriate surface. Equestrians are just a vulnerable on the roads as cyclists are.

Support

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167270

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Crime Prevention Design Team Cambridgeshire

Representation:

3.2 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Comment on the principle of designing out crime to promote community safety and reducing vulnerability to crime.

Support SPD's content. I would add the following comment:

Planning and Building Control Regulations and NPPG have underlined the importance of Police advice delivered in the form of the Secured by Design (SBD) initiative. SBD incorporates the latest security standards, developed to address emerging criminal methods of attack, and includes references to both building regulations and other statutory requirements across the UK. SBD delivers a significant reduction in crime and cost efficiency savings for a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, housing associations, landlords, residents and the Police service.

We're happy to consult with developers to ensure plans for future development in Waterbeach New Town enhance the principles of SBD to promote community safety and reduce vulnerability to crime.

Full text:

I am one of two Designing out Crime Officers, employed with Cambridgeshire Police. Our job involves working with architects, developers and the planning departments across Cambridgeshire using our expertise to 'design out crime' thus promoting community safety and reducing vulnerability to crime. I have read the proposed Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document and am happy to support its content. I would wish the following comment from our office to be recorded please:

Changes to English Planning and Building Control Regulations have underlined the importance of the Police advice delivered in the form of the Secured by Design (SBD) initiative. We seek to reinforce the need and importance of a safe and secure external environment. SBD incorporates the latest security standards, developed to address emerging criminal methods of attack, and includes references to both building regulations and other statutory requirements across the UK. The guidance also serves the legacy needs of the outgoing Code for Sustainable Homes. Based on sound research findings proves that SBD delivers a significant reduction in crime and cost efficiency savings for a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, housing associations, landlords, residents and the Police service.

Under the National Planning Practice Guidance the government has reiterated that designing out crime and designing in community safety should be central to the planning and delivery of new development. Local authorities are duty bound to adhere to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and exercise their functions with due regard to their likely effect on crime and disorder. The prevention of crime and the enhancement of community safety are matters that a local authority should consider when exercising its planning functions under the Town and Country Planning legislation.

This office is happy to consult with developers to ensure that all plans for future development in Waterbeach New Town enhance the principles of Secured by Design fully and we are especially happy to work with them to encourage applications for Secured by Design accreditation in all new developments.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167271

Received: 10/10/2018

Respondent: Cllr Hazel Smith

Representation:

6.4 DEVELOPMENT PHASING
Objection that the Phasing plan is too woolly and needs to be more prescriptive.

On page 141 the Phasing plan is too woolly. We know U&C want to start in the North and RLW in the East. It needs to be prescriptive, so that both developers start their housing in Phase 1 close to one another, and first residents can all use one school, to foster community cohesion from the start.

Full text:

On page 141 the Phasing plan is too woolly. We know U&C want to start in the North and RLW in the East. It needs to be prescriptive, so that both developers start their housing in Phase 1 close to one another, and first residents can all use one school, to foster community cohesion from the start.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167273

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs. Sophie Hyde

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

I can see no provision for equestrian access to routes in the area, and it appears that one of the existing routes used by horseriders in the area (Bannold Way) will become heavily used by motorised traffic under the proposals, rendering it unsafe for equestrian use. Cyclists and pedestrians are accounted for, horse-riders (who are equally vulnerable on the roads) are not. This is a significant oversight and discriminates against the very large number of horse-riders in Waterbeach and connecting villages.

Full text:

I can see no provision for equestrian access to routes in the area, and it appears that one of the existing routes used by horseriders in the area (Bannold Way) will become heavily used by motorised traffic under the proposals, rendering it unsafe for equestrian use. Cyclists and pedestrians are accounted for, horse-riders (who are equally vulnerable on the roads) are not. This is a significant oversight and discriminates against the very large number of horse-riders in Waterbeach and connecting villages.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167274

Received: 16/10/2018

Respondent: mr Barrie Crick

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to prioritising motor transport over sustainable transport & access to the new station should be directly from A10

New development should always put sustainable transport first i.e NOT motor transport. The whole scheme seems to revolve around the need to make sure people have ready access for car driving/parking. Recent international report on climate change - it must be our responsibility to ensure most short journeys (>@2 km) are done by walking or cycling. Present plan seems to do the opposite by routing main roads through the town centre with houses and even schools placed along side them. Better option would be a road design around the new town with better provision for walking and cycling within it to encourage more journeys by foot/cycle as often they would be quicker.

Access to the relocated railway station should be directly from the A10. This would ensure/encourage train users to walk/cycle to the station through the village instead of taking the car; another saving to the environment.

Full text:

From my initial reading of what is a very complicated document it seems to me that the people responsible for the SPD have missed a very important point, that being that any new development should always put sustainable transport first i.e NOT motor transport. The whole scheme seems to revolve around the need to make sure that people have ready access for car driving/parking. Especially since the recent international report on climate change it must be our responsibility to ensure that most short journeys (>@2 km) are done by either walking or cycling. The present plan for Waterbeach New Town seems to do the opposite by routing main roads through the town centre with houses and even schools placed along side them, which is not clever.
A better option would be a road design around the new town with better provision for walking and cycling with-in it. This would encourage more journeys to be made by foot/cycle as often they would be quicker.
Additionally I believe that access to the relocated railway station (RLW Estates) is going to be via Cody Road and/or Bannold Drove? Hopefully this is a mistake as surely any sane person would provide access directly from the A10 trunk road? This would then ensure/encourage any train users to walk/cycle to the station through the village instead of taking the car; another saving to the environment.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167275

Received: 18/10/2018

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

1. INTRODUCTION
Comment that County Council has been involved in preparation of SPD, it reflects engagement to date and aspirations to deliver a comprehensive development across the whole site, but important that sufficient flexibility for additional houses proposed in planning applications.

Council fed into preparation of draft SPD at officer level, working with Local Planning Authority its consultants and two developers. Included submission of formal comments and attendance at various workshops over last 15 months.

Considered that draft SPD represents a fair reflection of the engagement to date.

Infrastructure delivery plan is based on policy compliant development for a range of 8,000 to 9,000 dwellings. Council want to ensure SPD and particularly the delivery plan is sufficiently flexible to address the additional infrastructure demands from current applications for 11,000 dwellings.

Council wishes to ensure that objectives of local plan policy and SPD to deliver comprehensive development across whole site needs to be translated into greater cooperation between developers and to achieve successful delivery of development.

Full text:

Full representations in attached document

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167276

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: Guinevere Glasfurd-Brown

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Comment on the lack of detail on provision for arts and culture, including provision of a venue for live events and exhibition space

1) I want to comment on the lack of detail on the provision for arts in the New Town. Whilst 'Arts and Culture facilities' are referenced, these are in passing and entirely vague (SPD pp39-40). The Creative Industries, which include the arts, are of growing importance in the UK economy and can play an important part in helping to create vibrant and cohesive communities. Waterbeach has a lively arts community, which Urban and Civic has supported in recent years by hosting Open Studios at the Barracks site.

Section 106 funding is available to the New Town. It is hugely important that the plan for the New Town includes a dedicated venue for the arts to include live events, concerts and theatre as well as dedicated exhibition space. The plan should also consider how to embed the arts throughout the town through commissioned works and events that interpret the site and its fenland setting. Fen Edge communities are ill-served by the arts and there is opportunity here to change that model for the better.

Full text:

1) I want to comment on the lack of detail on the provision for arts in the New Town. Whilst 'Arts and Culture facilities' are referenced, these are in passing and entirely vague (SPD pp39-40). The Creative Industries, which include the arts, are of growing importance in the UK economy and can play an important part in helping to create vibrant and cohesive communities. Waterbeach has a lively arts community, which Urban and Civic has supported in recent years by hosting Open Studios at the Barracks site.

Section 106 funding is available to the New Town. It is hugely important that the plan for the New Town includes a dedicated venue for the arts to include live events, concerts and theatre as well as dedicated exhibition space. The plan should also consider how to embed the arts throughout the town through commissioned works and events that interpret the site and its fenland setting. Fen Edge communities are ill-served by the arts and there is opportunity here to change that model for the better.

2) The New Town would be better served by restricting vehicle access and having pedestrianised areas instead. I agree with the 'People First' vision for Waterbeach New Town proposed by the Waterbeach Cycle Campaign.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167277

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Bernard Goodin

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Amounts, Density and Heights
Comment that 11,000 houses and 6-8 storeys is too high

I think 11,000 houses is too many for this site six and eight stories high is too much for a Fenland town.

Full text:

I think 11,000 houses is too many for this site six and eight stories high is too much for a Fenland town.
I support the new railway station being built as soon as possible to releave for the parking in Waterbeach
There should be a further road out of the new town over the railway and river to wards Bottisham roundabout and A10 improved before too much development is done to the new town
A new road should be built off the A10 to the new station at the same time as the new station is built


Yours Bernard Goodin

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167278

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sue Groves

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Object to relocating the railway station - the new town should have its own in addition

I really wanted to complete the online form for the proposed New Town at Waterbeach, but could not navigate my way through your complicated site to locate the form. My objection to the proposed plans are that I strongly object to the moving of the much loved and used railway station. The New town will surely be big enough to support it's own rail station.

Leave our lovely village untouched, it's enough that we will become an add on to the new town.

Full text:

I really wanted to complete the online form for the proposed New Town at Waterbeach, but could not navigate my way through your complicated site to locate the form. My objection to the proposed plans are that I strongly object to the moving of the much loved and used railway station. The New town will surely be big enough to support it's own rail station.
Leave our lovely village untouched, it's enough that we will become an add on to the new town.

Support

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167279

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: Professor Richard Stobart

Representation:

3. VISION
Support the proposals and in particular the possibility to create a substantial new living space in keeping with sustainability goals.

I welcome the "Waterbeach New Town" proposals and in particular the possibility to create a substantial new living space in keeping with sustainability goals. The opportunity for using and extending best practice is an excellent one and must be seized. The timing of the project is at a time of significant change in transport and energy technologies. Car ownership is in decline, and this together with electric and autonomous vehicle technology is suggesting a less passenger-car-centred future.

Full text:

This response is from an individual. I have been a resident for the last two years in one of the new housing developments adjacent to Cody Road, Waterbeach. I am a retired Professor of Engineering, specialised on vehicle engineering.

I welcome the "Waterbeach New Town" proposals and in particular the possibility to create a substantial new living space in keeping with sustainability goals. The opportunity for using and extending best practice is an excellent one and must be seized. The timing of the project is at a time of significant change in transport and energy technologies. Car ownership is in decline, and this together with electric and autonomous vehicle technology is suggesting a less passenger-car-centred future.

My concerns about the SPD begin with the presentation and language which in places is rambling and vague. The use of the words "must", "will", "should" does not appear consistent. "Must" and "will" express certainty and obligation. The word "should" implies that the item described will not necessarily be implemented.

It is surprising that the SPD hardly cites existing good practice let alone extending into new aspects of community planning and management. There are examples of good practice coming from mainland Europe and we should be seeking to emulate and improve good practice. References to good practice need to be made, otherwise the proposals look ordinary and definitely not in keeping with an ambitious regional outlook. The Developers will undoubtedly benefit from a close association with the newest and best developments.

Section 2 - Site Context

Concerning cycling, Waterbeach currently offers very little. National Cycle route 11 should pass through Waterbeach, but there is a critical missing link between the river and the village of Lode. There is no cycle parking in the village and there are few cycle routes. The cycle route along the A10 towards Milton is narrow and dangerous. Cyclists going in opposite directions cannot easily pass. There is no safe route going northbound.

Section 3 - Vision

The notion of walking and cycling being given priority is welcome. It will encourage the shift to new modes particularly on the part of new residents. It is quite likely that new residents currently living in London will not own a car and will be drawn to a community in which cycling and walking are easy and safe.

Section 4 - Towards a Spatial Framework

On Page 40, there is reference to a small car park for use by Waterbeach residents wishing to visit the new town centre. There is no need for this. It will encourage car use in the village. Instead the proposed shuttle bus (included in the new station proposal) will serve the village and convey people to the new town centre.

On Page 41 there is reference to a "separate access" to the new station. This continuing use of the temporary Cody Road access is not necessary and any residual village road traffic to the railway station must be routed by the A10.

I observe Cody Road on a daily basis. At rush hour it is already busy with cars, cyclists and pedestrians. School times are particularly busy with groups walking to and from the local school and crossing at the Bannold Road/Cody Road junction. There is a decision already made concerning routing of local traffic to the new, relocated station. Given how busy the road is already, the long term intention to use Cody Road for station traffic and to serve an area of housing (page 61) is quite inappropriate and unnecessary. Road traffic from the village to the new station can and must be routed by the A10. Access to housing in the new community must be from the new community's transport network and not Cody Road.

The description of the primary network (Figure 18, page 45) carries contradictions. While the activity of the new town - shops and community facilities - are to be located on the primary routes these same routes are to carry traffic flows to and from a major junction in the middle of the town centre. The town centre will only function as such if the traffic is routed elsewhere and kept separate from the community facilities. Car traffic must be routed around the community on a "ring road" to the north. No homes or community facilities should be located on these "primary routes".

Air quality will suffer with the primary route stricture. A major junction in the centre of the town will lead to frequent stop-starts with consequent high particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions. There is no limit to be placed on the type of vehicles entering the town, so we will see a mixed population of diesel and petrol, old and new. Old diesel vehicles have an enormous power to pollute.

On pages 45-46 the notion of connecting communities implies walking and cycling route uninterrupted by vehicle flows. This important notion connects with the need to exclude rather than encourage traffic in these central areas.

I strongly support the idea of a vibrant and well connected town centre, but object strongly to the routing of traffic through this same centre. Alternative routing of traffic with no loss of journey times will be possible because of the greater average speed of cars taking longer and outer routes. Incidentally, the smoother operation along such outer routes greatly suits the operation of an internal combustion engine vehicle which will be both less polluting and more economical.

On page 48, two sites for a Park and Ride scheme are mentioned. The one to the North of the new community and one located close to the station. I support the Northern location. It will relieve the A10 to the south and encourage visitors to the new town, and act as a supplementary parking area for the station (assuming the park and ride also serves the station). There is no need for Park and Ride facilities at the station. The station will have its own car park and be served by buses. Another Park and Ride facility will simply encourage traffic flow through the community.

The Causeway link described on Page 57 is warmly welcomed. It alludes to the history of Waterbeach and creates a symbolic and actual link between Waterbeach village and the new community. Its plans must be defined so that pedestrians are prioritised and cyclists are guided down a separate cycle path.

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

P 82 "Active cycle and pedestrian routes and public transport should be provided at the earliest
opportunity ..." is too loose a statement for such an important aspect of the new community. Phrasing must be " .. must be provided in advance of the development of homes and community facilities..." in other words cycling and pedestrian routes must be in place from the beginning of the project.

P 83 "Active cycle and pedestrian routes and public transport should be provided at the earliest
opportunity ..." is also too loose. It must be re-phrased to " .. must be provided from the beginning of the project ..."

One aspect of good practice that must be included in this section is the principle of equivalent journey times. It should be no quicker to take a car journey than to walk or cycle within the area of the new community.

Traffic management within Waterbeach village needs to be improved in such a way that routing through the village is not considered an "easy" option for car drivers. Traffic calming, closure of Greenside to through traffic and in particular a 20mph speed limit should all be considered. In the longer term, restriction of Way Lane to pedestrians, cyclists and local traffic would make for a safer environment for the primary school and for those walking to the new community.


Section 6 - Delivering the place

Certain aspects of the Delivery plan needs to be better defined. In particular the link to Cottenham (p 119) must be in place at the beginning of the project. There is substantial traffic flow from Cottenham to both the A10 and to Waterbeach railway station. A reliable cycle route to the new town - thence to the Park and Ride and the railway station will considerably help displace road traffic.

It is vital that the A10 link road (p122) into the new community is available at the beginning of the project and is kept well separated from new housing and schools. This will meet the needs for traffic to the new railway station.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167281

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: British Horse Society

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

Objection to the SPD on the grounds that it fails to provide or require provision of access for equestrians to be included in the strategic objectives nor strategic principles.

BHS correspondence outlining positive discussions with Cambridgeshire County Council (Appendix 1) and responses to the two developers' applications (Appendix 3) together with the submissions made by Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group have been completely ignored.

Bannold Drove byway is currently well used by equestrians and is proposed to be the main access to the railway station. No alternative route / mitigation proposed - contrary to policy.

Health and wellbeing benefits of equestrianism well documented.

Exclusion of equestrians contrary to GCP Greenways project (Appendix 1).

Provided detailed outline of policies which the SPD fails to apply / meet [Local Plan Policies HQ/1, TI/2, NH/6 and Cambridgeshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2016 Policies SOA1, SOA2, SOA4, SOA5, NPPF 2018 para 83] and the items where equestrian access / facilities need to be incorporated before SPD is adopted [provided a schematic proposal]. To not do so would be discriminatory and contrary to Equal Opportunities Act.

Equestrian access needs to be included in all shared use cycle / pedestrian routes except where inappropriate for equestrian access.

Trumpington Meadows and Cambourne are recent examples of good practice.

No mention of existing stables and livery yards in Waterbeach. Important for rural economy.

Full text:

Response on behalf of the British Horse Society (BHS) - 22nd October 2018

I am the County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire for the British Horse Society. I wish to register my OBJECTION to the above Document on the grounds that it fails to provide or require provision of access for equestrians.

Detailed response is attached as a Word document.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167282

Received: 22/10/2018

Respondent: Miss Tess Appleby

Representation:

1. INTRODUCTION
I support the proposed New Town and the SCDC vision to have a development with high levels of cycling and walking. However, the existing SPD will not deliver such a development, instead prioritising the use of motorised vehicles to the detriment of existing and New Town residents.
I support the alternative vision put forward by Waterbeach Cycling Campain for a plan that:
1) Prioritises walking and cycling over driving
2) Keeps schools and pre-schools away from busy roads
3) Encourages the routing of traffic from the existing village to the New Town along the A10 rather than through the village.

Full text:

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally object to the current 'high level vision' set out in the Waterbeach New Town SPD.

Like many Waterbeach residents, I support the principle of a New Town, and support the South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) vision to have a development with high levels of social, outdoor and active transport (cycling and walking). I am very concerned that the SPD falls way short of delivering such a development.

As a resident of Station Road, no more than four minutes' walk from the existing train station, I have major concerns with the impact that the development will have on the existing village, particularly the very narrow and already-crowded Station Road. I am also concerned for residents in the Cody Road area, particularly given the proximity to schools and the Little Stars nursery. The SPD needs to be much stronger to ensure that impacts on the existing village are limited, and to ensure that existing villages feel welcome and a part of the new development, rather than isolated and 'left behind' with all the developments and improvements north of the existing village.

Particularly, I am concerned that Station Road will become even more of a 'rat run' and feel very strongly that on-street parking should be retained and enhanced on the road so as to act as a traffic calming measure.

My concerns with the SPD, and broad improvements that I would like to see to the SPD are outlined below:

Section 2 - Site Context.
This section discusses the context of the development site within the existing area. To improve the context regarding cycling, this section needs reviewing and updating:
- The statement on page 17, "National Cycle Route 11 links Waterbeach railway station with Cambridge along the River Cam, with potential links to a widespread network of routes on the eastern side of the river" needs amending to acknowledge the historic issues with developing this route East of Waterbeach. I suggest adding "Attempts have been made to complete the gap in the NCN11 path, linking Waterbeach to Ely and other routes to the East, but difficulties with landowners have not made this possible".
- The statement on page 17, "There is a cycle path running along parts of the A10 to the south of the site" needs amending to acknowledge the dangerous state of this section of cycle route. I suggest "There is a poorly maintained and dangerous cycle path running directly alongside the A10 south of the site to Milton"
- The statement on page 17, "There is limited existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site" is incorrect. This needs amending to say "There is no existing cycling infrastructure within the village or connecting into the site".

Section 3 - Vision

I fully support the aspiration for a development that is (page 29), "WELL CONNECTED - Easy to move around, in an environment where active travel and public transport are the norm." However, there is very little evidence in the SPD that the new town will meet this aspiration.

I fully support the statement in the vision (page 30) that, "Walking and Cycling will be given priority", but this appears as mere lip service as there is little other evidence in the SPD that this will be the case. An additional clause is required in Section 6 under "Pedestrian and Cycling infrastructure (page 118) to give pedestrians and Cyclists priority, such as "Segregated Cycle routes built along all roads within the development will give cyclists priority through all junctions. Pedestrians will be segregated from Cyclists on all routes."

Section 4 - Towards a spatial framework

This section establishes the key structuring elements of the New Town. Many of these elements will encourage a development with high levels of car use, which does not support the SCDC vision laid out in Section 3, and directly puts at risk, and undermines, the health and well-being of existing and new residents.

The SPD proposes (page 40), "A small car park located at the existing entrance to the barracks could enable residents of the village to park close to and then walk to the new town centre." This does not support the SCDC vision stated in Section 3, and I like many others STRONGLY oppose this proposal, and request this proposal is removed from the SPD. A car park in this location will:
- Encourage existing residents to drive around the village rather than walk, cycle or use public transport.
- Increase traffic within the village, making the roads more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.
- Reduce footfall into existing village facilities (shops, eateries).

A small number of disabled only parking spaces close to the town centre (within the development) could be provided for those who have a genuine need to use cars to reach the town centre.

There is a proposal (on page 41) that, "A separate access to the railway station from the village will be created and retained for the benefit of residents of the village and from Horningsea, utilising access from Cody Road". This does not encourage active travel as laid out in the Vision in Section 3 and I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal:
- Will bring additional traffic through a predominantly residential area within the existing village. Cody Road is the main route for parents and children to access Little Stars Nursery - many of whom walk and cycle. It is also used by residents of the Cody Road estate to take children to school and to walk or cycle into the rest of the village.
- Will encourage existing residents to drive to the new station rather than walk or cycle.
- Will be used as a route for villagers from Landbeach and Cottenham to drive through the village to the station as well as those from Horningsea.
- Will add more traffic to the staggered junction from Way Lane onto Cody Road. This is already busy, and a dangerous crossing to make on bicycle. Adding more traffic to this junction is not acceptable.

RLW have claimed in their transport assessment that there will be no additional journeys made through the village, as traffic currently travels through the village to the existing station. Rerouting this traffic through the village to the relocated station will result in these cars passing close to the GP Surgery, Primary School and Little Stars Nursery - which leads to an unacceptable risk to the people (including children), who regularly use these facilities. Additionally, the longer (8 car) trains and large carpark proposed at the station will lead to increased use of the station and more journeys made by car, all of which will pass along Cody Road. I would like to see all traffic to the new station (including that from the existing village) to be routed through the New Town. This will help drive a modal shift from car to walking/cycling for journeys made to the station from the existing village, and will reduce traffic in the Cody Road area.

On page 60 there is a proposal that, "Some of these proposed dwellings will use the proposed new vehicular access road serving the proposed relocated train station for their access". I strongly object to this proposal and would like to see this statement is removed, and that there be a clause in the SPD that "All dwellings in the New Town will be connected to the New Town road network and not the village transport network". It is unacceptable for there to be a vehicular link between the village and the new town.

Figure 29 on page 61 shows connections across the land ownership boundary on primary and secondary routes, but not cycle and pedestrian routes (only the woolly wording "other connections"). It is important that connections across the land ownership boundary for cycle and pedestrian routes are agreed within the SPD as these will become important links through the development. These cycle and pedestrian routes must be afforded the same importance in the SPD as that given to primary/secondary road links. We foresee routes not being built, or being built in suboptimal locations unless they are agreed at this stage. Please update the figure to provide firm proposals for these connections.

In Table 8 starting on page 72, it is stated that (page 73) "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased at the earliest opportunity". This is too vague - this statement should be replaced by "Sustainable modes of travel should be phased before first occupation".

Section 5 - Guiding Principles

On page 85 is the proposal, "When the rail station is relocated, a separate access to the rail station will be created through the village to enable existing residents of the village to be able to access the station without having to go out onto the A10 and access it through the New Town." We do not want this. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal which must be removed from the SPD if SCDC want to achieve their vision of transportation modal shift from everyday car use to other healthier and more environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

Page 88 states that, "In order to mitigate the impact upon the A10, the development must achieve a significant modal shift towards public transport and active travel", and then goes on to describe the following highway improvements: "Strategic highway improvements that could include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades the junctions on the corridor including Milton Interchange", and, "Local highway improvements to mitigate development impacts at all points where capacity challenges are identified". These two measures will achieve the opposite of modal shift, and will ensure that the development becomes car-centric. These measures should be entirely removed from the SPD.

Additional guiding principles for Movement and Place should focus on the following concepts:

- For any given trip within the new town (e.g. - from any dwelling to the local school, nearest shop, train station and leisure facilities), taking the trip by walking or cycling should always be quicker than taking the car. I recognise that some people are reliant on cars (eg people with disabilities, or people carrying large amounts of luggage), and do not want to make car driving around the site impossible, but we want to make sure that it is always easier and quicker to cycle or walk to common everyday destinations, such that this becomes the norm.
- Cycle and walking routes should be made to be direct rather than winding, such that cycling and walking becomes the quickest and easiest options for any trip within the development. For example, as a resident of Station Road, I strongly support a pedestrian and bike friendly track-parallel path leading directly from the existing station site to the new station site, rather than having to quadruple my current journey by walking through the existing village on busy roads with narrow pavements.
- Cycle routes should be segregated from footpaths to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
- Cycleway design parameters should be taken from 'Designing for Cycle Traffic' by John Parkin (Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, 2018)2 and Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16 by Highways England.

Section 6 - Delivering the place
- The traffic calming and improvements to junctions within Waterbeach village, on page 121 need to be delivered pre-occupation, or at least before the Train Station is relocated, as the measures will help to mitigate traffic impacts on the village from the Train Station move.
- It is important that the A10 junction (southern access) road on page 122 is delivered pre-occupation, as this will ensure that there is a link to the new station for traffic from outside the village, and will provide a route for construction traffic to access the RLW portion of the site without using the village road network.
- Section 6.5 on Page 142 describes Monitoring, Review and Implementation for the development. I propose adding an ambitious target modal share by walking/cycling to the 'Critical Areas' listed on page 142. Houten achieves a 'Non-motorised mode share' of 55%, and there is no reason that Waterbeach New Town could not achieve a similar percentage. A non-motorised model share target of 50% should be added to this section, with monitoring, review and implementation actions to be carried out to ensure that this target is met.

I very strongly support the alternative vision set out by the Waterbeach Cycling Campaign for how the New Town should be developed. They have called this the "People First" Vision, as it puts the needs of people before the needs of motor vehicles. The new proposed plan has been published as a pdf on the Waterbeach Cylcling Campaign website and is also attached. I am also attaching the accompanying explanatory document explaining the design principles, again laid out by the WCC. I, like so many of my neighbours, want to see a vibrant, thriving, healthy community, with cycling and walking used for all everyday journeys.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167284

Received: 23/10/2018

Respondent: Sue Edwards

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT and PLACE
Objection: The A10 should be fully upgraded before any development on the Barracks site commences.
Objection: The railway station should not be moved from its present site until the quantum of the new development is greater than that in Waterbeach village.

Full text:

1. The A10 should be fully upgraded before any development on the Barracks site commences.
2. More health centre/GP provision should be in place at a very early stage of the development.
3. The railway station should not be moved from its present site until the quantum of the new development is greater than that in Waterbeach village.
4. No construction traffic should be permitted to access the site through the village of Waterbeach

The site is currently earmarked for 8-9,000 properties although up to 11,000 could eventually be built. I object to this number because the A10 cannot possibly cope with the huge amount of traffic the development, in its construction stage and afterwards. It is already heavily congested and at peak times is at a standstill. No development should commence on the site until the A10 is properly upgraded. There is an estimate that 25,000 people will live on the new development yet it seems that only one GP surgery/health centre is mentioned. It is also envisaged that the existing health centre in Waterbeach copes with additional demand, from Section 106 contributions, during the early stages of the development. This health centre already is at full capacity. There is no mention of health care beyond that provided by the GP surgery. Addenbrooke's Hospital is frequently on black alert - how can it cope with this additional 25,000 people, plus those from other developments taking place in the county. I do not consider that the railway station should be moved from its present site until the quantum development of the new town is greater than that in Waterbeach village. Those people presently living in the village, especially at the southern end, would no longer be able to easily walk to the new station.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167286

Received: 23/10/2018

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation:

2.3 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY
Comment: Comprehensive sustainable movement framework and a potential connection to Cycle Route 11 shown in Figure 6 is noted.

Full text:

Please refer to uploaded document.

2.3 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY
Comment: Comprehensive sustainable movement framework and a potential connection to Cycle Route 11 shown in Figure 6 is noted.

2.6 SURROUNDING CONTEXT
Support: Reference to the Wicken Fen Vision.
Objection: Opportunities have been missed to look beyond the immediate site boundaries and to integrate the site
effectively with the surrounding countryside. The site also has a relationship to rural parts of East Cambridgeshire, located to the
north east of the development.

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS
Support: Broadly support the proposed approach to Structuring Elements and Guiding Principles.

4.2.3 PRIMARY MOVEMENT ACCESS
Objection: Primary movement and Access: The proposals for cycling and pedestrian movement omit reference to:
- pedestrian and cycle links the north to the north and east, including the Fen Rivers Way;
- and Lodes Way (National Cycle Route 11).
Support: Inclusion of the 'missing link', which would connect Waterbeach to Wicken. The Trust is supportive of this scheme subject to being satisfied that measures are in place to protect ecologically sensitive parts of the Wicken Fen reserve.

4.2.6 PUBLIC SPACES
Support: Green infrastructure; delivery of high quality multifunctional green spaces and wider connectivity.

4.2.10 EDGE TREATMENTS
Comment: Principle 7 Greenways and Corridors should consider specific enhancement opportunities, and articulate a long term vision for enhancing the Fen Edge and Rail corridor.

5.5 GUIDING PRINCIPLES - 20 Create a multifunctional Green Network
Objection: Commitment needed in SPD to this Guiding Principle otherwise SPD is not fully compliant with Local Plan Policy NH4 in terms of aiding the delivery of the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
Comment: The SPD should endorse the use of the Natural Cambridgeshire Local Nature Partnership's (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit in the design and delivery of multi-functional habitats at Waterbeach.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167287

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Anglian Water

Representation:

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

Anglian Water support the development in principle and the proposals in the SPD. Anglian Water have engaged with all stakeholders in the development of this drainage strategy and hold regular Steering Group meetings and attend the Waterbeach Community Forums. De4tailed comments are provided on the SPD.

It is unclear when the need date for a new waste waster recycling centre is given the different building rate trajectories presented by the local authority and by the developers.

It is unclear what the overall number of dwellings the waster water recycling centre will be required to service given the different overall numbers for the development in the Local Plan, the SPD and the outline planning applications.

Full text:

This response is made for and on behalf of Anglian Water who support the development in principle and the proposals in the SPD.

Anglian Water is required to provide waste water treatment services for the new development. Potable water is provided by Cambridge Water.

There is limited further capacity within the current Water Recycling Centre ("WRC") at Waterbeach and given this and the estimated delivery time for new housing there is a need to develop an overall waste water drainage strategy.

Anglian Water have engaged with all stakeholders in the development of this drainage strategy and hold regular Steering Group meetings and attend the Waterbeach Community Forums. The Steering Group members include various employees of Anglian Water involved in the project, RLW, Urban and Civic, South Cambridgeshire District Council, The Environment Agency, The Ely Internal Drainage Board and Cambridge County Council.

The most favourable solution to the limited further capacity at the WRC has to date been the construction of a new, larger works on a relocated site of approximately 10-15 acres.

The statement made on page 125 of the SPD regarding the delivery strategy is correct in that it identifies the current further available capacity at the WRC to be approximately 500 extra dwellings and that there is the possibility to connect, on a temporary basis, to the Research Park to allow drainage for a further (approximate) 900 units. It must be noted that this capacity has not been "secured". Capacity cannot be reserved within the exiting network. In accordance with Water Industry Act 1991, connections to the exiting network are permissible on a first come, first served basis.

Anglian Water have a further comment to add to this section, namely that they are developing a further option to provide waste water drainage whilst a new works is being constructed. Capacity for a further 750 dwellings will be achieved by diverting, via a new pipeline, the existing discharge point at the WRC from the Bannolds drove IDB controlled drain, to a new discharge point in the River Cam where there is much greater dilution than the current discharge point.

Both Urban and Civic and RLW have been working closely with Anglian Water to ensure that capacity is available in the waste water network by underwriting the financing of the detailed design for the new water recycling centre. Anglian Water is funded by Ofwat on 5 yearly business plan cycles/Asset Management Period or "AMPS". The new water recycling centre will not be in a position to receive funding until after planning permission is granted and the development has legitimate planning status. The new works are listed as required within the next AMP (2019-2024). As detailed above, there are 3 options available to provide extra waste water draiange for the planned development whilst the new water recycling centre is in construction.

Anglian Water also wishes to comment on the table set out on page 145 in approaches to delivery.

Anglian Water have been designing and working towards the build out rates provided by both developers in their building trajectories for the site. These combined estimates takes the number of constructed dwelling to approximately 4,500 by 2031, considerably more than the 2,300 by 2031 suggested in the SPD.

In addition, the Local Plan suggests that the new development will accommodate up to 9000 dwellings in total, yet the two outline planning applications that have been submitted total 11,000 dwellings.

It is critical to Anglian Water to understand the number of dwellings the new water recycling centre must be designed to accommodate. Anglian Water require a degree of certainty about these numbers to ensure the correct design horizons and the appropriate funding from Ofwat at the appropriate time. If the estimates are incorrect, Anglian Water could be over sizing a waste water recycling centre or delivering a works before it is needed. The most accurate number of dwellings and their estimated delivery date should be included within the SPD to establish the correct need date and the correct overall waste water drainage strategy. If this is not possible, a restricted number of properties should be permitted within a defined phasing programme.

Anglian Water would wish to ensure that water re-use and SUDS schemes are promoted wherever possible within the SPD. Whilst Anglian Water cannot enforce either of these options and are not responsible for their implementation or long term maintenance, as part of a long term resilience plan and environmental advanced development, Anglian Water would wish to see more details of how the two developers can deliver these options reflected within the SPD.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167288

Received: 23/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Donna Smith

Representation:

1.5 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Object: Layout and relationship to Waterbeach village needs further consideration, either its separate or its not the developers can not have the best of both worlds.

Full text:

The access and transport needs to be addressed - particularly A10 upgrade and effect on existing village.
Layout and relationship to Waterbeach village needs further consideration, either its separate or its not the developers can not have the best of both worlds.

I feel that 11,000 homes for this site is too much, the density and height of the proposed building is more suited to an urban site rather than the rural setting that Waterbeach currently is. I agree that the current disused barracks should be developed but not the green fields surrounding it, the impact to the surrounding fenland environment has not been taken into account. Although the new town is said to be completely separate to Waterbeach village there is not enough distinction between the two and why keep reference it as Waterbeach new town? The relocation of the train station is only being done to serve the new town and consideration and integration to the existing community has not been properly thought through. No new development should take place until the A10 has been upgraded and there should be a ban on all construction traffic using the existing village.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167289

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Nigel Seamarks

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT, DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
Objection: Dwellings must be limited to 9,000 or less;
Objection: Market town approach 4 story dwellings max

Full text:

1.dwellings must be limited to 9,000 or less

2. Market town approach 4 story dwellings max

3. CLT promotion a full section not a maybe paragraph

4. The negative impact Amey is causing to air quality, continuous EA breaches, resolve

5. Crime prevention section within health

6. Park and Ride service must service the village

7. Process to be put in place to make the developers work together. Currently behaving like a divorced pair

8. Remove EFW references

9. Water treatment to be 1,000 meters away from the river Camb to protect recreational use

The Waterbeach SPD does not cover the basics :-

1. The number of dwellings should be restricted to 8,000 to 9,000 as per the inspectors report. The developers want more and the SPD seems to be developer led. The key element of the SPD must be explicit that the development will be 9,000 dwellings or less. Reference to 10,000 to 11,000 should be removed.

2. The inspector states the delivery should be in keeping with a Market Town. The SPD should be explicit and limit the number of stories to 4 maximum. The majority should be 2 story developments in keeping with a market town. Further the boundaries between Denny Abbey and Waterbeach Village should be limited to 2 stories in terms of development.

3. The SPD should promote the local CLT. The Waterbeach CLT should be a section within the document. The CLT is a key organisation in delivering affordable housing to local people. The key workers section should be removed as all workers are key.

4. Air Quality- Amey Cespa East continues to breach EA permits the SPD should reference within the Air Quality requirements that the council will work with the EA in ensuring Amey comply with permits. Amey is the major local pollution source in terms of Air Quality after the A10. It is unfair that 30,000 people may be subject to poor Air Quality and smells generated illegally by Amey. The SPD must address this issue.

5. Health and Mental Health, one of the main elements to healthy living is a low crime environment. The SPD does not address crime prevention and the role of the police. 9,000 houses on top of the existing village should warrant a police station. The council needs to learn from the Orchard Park errors which has led to Orchard Parks high crime issues.Orchard Park is now a leading UK crime hotspot we don't want the same mistakes made at Waterbeach

6. The Park and Ride service must come to the existing village. This will give the current village good access to key resources 7 days a week, eg train station, supermarkets. We must not allow U&C to remove Waterbeach village from the P&R services

7. The developers are not working together eg U&C feel RLW have been premature with the train station application (based on village drop in sessions). RLW need a road from the A10 but that land is in control of U&C. Some systems need to be put into place to ensure the developers work together and disputes can be resolved by arbitration. We must not get creep from 8,000 to 9,000 houses.

8. Reference to EFW should be removed from the document as planning approval has been rejected. Further the comment about electricity generation is irrelevant as the electricity cable was going to Kings Hedges not the new town.

9. Water treatment plants, Waterbeach Village has a great resource used by many people for recreational use, the River Camb. Any new plants should be based at least 1,000 meters away from the River Camb. Sewage plants don't go hand in hand with recreational areas, smells, vista etc etc . The SPD should state the sewage works (water treatment) must not be within 1,000 meters of recreational areas.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167290

Received: 26/09/2018

Respondent: National Grid

Agent: AMEC FOSTER WHEELER E&I UK (on behalf of National Grid)

Representation:

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
Comment from National Grid that it has no high voltage electricity assets or high pressure gas pipelines in the Waterbeach SPD area.

Comment

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167291

Received: 08/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Jones

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Comment providing suggestions and recommendations relating to transport infrastructure.

Suggestions and recommendations relating to transport infrastructure:
1. New homes, new residents and new commuters - need vastly increased public transport soon & challenges transporting people on this scale
2. Car traffic generated by Waterbeach New Town - most residents will have cars & must plan seriously to cater for the extra trips
3. Alternatives to car travel - big assumption to change habits from cars to walking & cycling
4. Demographic realities - ageing population less able / active
5. School runs - significant traffic load through new town & along A10
6. Additional bus capacity - P&R, guided bus & additional buses will not come close to catering for 1,000s additional commuters / school children
7. Moving Waterbeach Railway Station - premature as disadvantage villagers whilst town is built out & only access via already congested Cody Road
8. Station car parking - Cambridge North relieved pressure, more residents will drive once station moved, & attract people from wider catchment
9. Train capacity - overcrowded but longer trains will relieve short term
10. Waterbeach 2-Station proposal
11. Cambridge Area Mass Transport - long term integration with metro
12. Opportunities to augment this SPD - need realistic transport projections & imaginative provision

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167292

Received: 11/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

Liaising with GCP on the greenways project, about protecting and extending equine access routes across the Waterbeach area and beyond.

SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 'Provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Page 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam. However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access specified, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167293

Received: 11/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Objection to impacts on horse riding routes / access

We object to the obstruction by default of intense buildings and vehicular traffic, of the ancient and important equestrian access route at Bannold and Cross Drove.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167294

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Full text:

I am a honorary member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse loaner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167295

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
We object to the obstruction by default of intense buildings and vehicular traffic, of the ancient and important equestrian access route at Bannold and Cross Drove.

Full text:

I am a honorary member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse loaner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167296

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Full text:

I am a member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse owner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167297

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Objection to impacts on horse riding routes / access

We object to the obstruction by default of intense buildings and vehicular traffic, of the ancient and important equestrian access route at Bannold and Cross Drove

Full text:

I am a member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including myself, a rider and horse owner at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167298

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Objection to lack of reference to bridleways / horse access.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Full text:

I have just been made aware of the proposed SPD.

I am a honorary member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages (including myself, a rider at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables), plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.
Regards

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167299

Received: 12/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Objection to impacts on horse riding routes / access

We object to the obstruction by default of intense buildings and vehicular traffic, of the ancient and important equestrian access route at Bannold and Cross Drove

Full text:

I have just been made aware of the proposed SPD.

I am a honorary member of the Waterbeach & District Bridleways group which represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself and an additional c50 riders from surrounding villages (including myself, a rider at the village riding school Hall Farm Stables), plus the College of West Anglia who share interest in the local access routes. It also represents some 200 horses owned by riders and riding establishments. The group are British Horse Society members.

The SPD executive summary mentions 7.1 provision of development that prioritises cycling and pedestrians. Pages 16, and 70-78 of the Draft SPD show non-motorised access routes including a circular route around the proposed new town, restoration of the ancient Roman Causeway, through green spaces and woodland areas, and along a series of networks within the proposed new town and beyond toward other areas and across the railway line and River Cam.

However, nowhere in the SPD is equestrian access mentioned, yet walking and cycling access is clearly defined. This omission is neglectful and discriminatory.

Most significant areas of concern to me are within Section 12 of SPD (Spatial Framework) as outlined below:

1. High and medium density build area along Bannold Drove through to junction with Cross Drove (including presence of major new rail station close to this non-motorised route); this will only mean significant increases in traffic both from the development and train commuters throughout the day, everyday making riding too dangerous for all concerned.

2. The proposed high and medium density housing along Bannold Drove and at the station area will result in the ancient byway route between Bannold Drove being surrounded. This byway travels from Waterbeach towards Cross Drove and both connect with Bannold Road and Long Drove (collectively making a circular byway route that is used regularly by horse riders and other non-motorised users).

3. In particular the proposed new station, coupled with the major station access road and the change in use of the byway 'Bannold drove' ('important access route' pg 27 Draft SPD) into a major infrastructure road- will interfere significantly with, and arguably completely sever, the existing access route of Bannold Drove used by horse riders to travel to Cross Drove and Long Drove.

The proposals mean it would be almost impossible for horse riders to continue to use this historical route, and or safely navigate this route. However, pedestrians and cyclists and vehicle access has been prioritised.

4. The type of traffic along Bannold Drove byway and out towards Cross Drove byway area will also change significantly (introduction of HGVs, various maintenance, servicing and passenger vehicles): changing this area to a highly urbanised and industrialised zone- as mentioned in 1., this creates serious complications and safety hazards for the many equestrians who use this access route.

With these objections, I am now requesting the introduction to the plans of:
i. Multiple multi-user connections across Bannold Drove and Cross Drove including equestrian suitable ones.
ii. Provision of multi-user bridleway by-passes or bridges if necessary in areas where building or traffic density presents hazards.

This is a village with village life, please consider these simple, safety amendments to allow us all to continue enjoying it the way we have always been able to.
Regards

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167300

Received: 13/10/2018

Respondent: Ms Laetitia Stuart-Bruges

Representation:

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
Object to the loss of Bannold drove as a rural village bridleway with no replacements proposed.

Objection to losing Bannold Drove as a secluded grassy track which horse riders can currently safely canter on away from high levels of passers by or traffic. Development is encroaching on the rural landscape and provisions need to be made to replace features which it eliminates.

Currently it is effectively removing one of our best off road secluded rural bridleways. The river paths by Long Drove are inaccessible to horse riders, as is the path to Chittering. We would like to see an increase in bridleways and in particular safe circular routes. Upgrading footpaths to bridleways would help. Opportunity to improve the area for riders as well as giving a general benefit to the general public in having improved access to the countryside.

With the increased number of people living in the village, the roads will be busier and less safe, so safe places to ride are a necessity. Outdoor pursuits such as horse riding promote physical and mental health and the many riders, including children and the disabled need to be considered in this planning document. Please could you add provision for horse riders in your plan.

I also support the comments by the Waterbeach and District bridleways group.

Full text:

I would like to write to object to the loss of Bannold drove as a rural village bridleway with no replacements proposed. I could not get the Web response form to work, I hope this email is sufficient to make this objection.

We have an objection to losing Bannold Drove as a secluded grassy track which horse riders can currently safely canter on away from high levels of passers by or traffic. The development is encroaching on the rural landscape and provisions need to be made to replace features which it eliminates.

Currently it is effectively removing one of our best off road secluded rural bridleways. The river paths by Long Drove are inaccessible to horse riders, as is the path to Chittering. We would like to see an increase in bridleways and in particular safe circular routes (Bannold drove currently provides an excellent wide soft grassy track that provides a loop with the low traffic Long Drove).

The addition of circular rides within the development and up grading footpaths to bridleways (this means changing a few gates from kissing gates to bridleway gates) would help. Upgrading the footpath to Chittering to a bridleway (making the small bridge over the ditch horse safe, or creating a ford) is also an opportunity to improve the area for riders as well as giving a general benefit to the general public in having improved access to the countryside.

Bridleways are easy to implement but do require small changes from footpaths and cycleways to be safe for all users and accessible. The gates need to be and minimum of 1.5m wide, openable from horseback (see bhs guidelines), the surface is ideally grass where the horses ride, and the paths need to be a minimum of 3 m wide.

Motorised vehicles can be excluded by padlocked down poles over the tracks which can be stepped over by horses if this is a concern for landowners.

Bannold Drove is not only the best bridleway but also one of the only bridleways in the village. With the increased number of people living in the village, the roads will be busier and less safe, so safe places to ride are a necessity. Outdoor pursuits such as horse riding promote physical and mental health and the many riders, including children and the disabled need to be considered in this planning document. Please could you add provision for horse riders in your plan.

I also support the comments by the Waterbeach and District bridleways group.

Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167301

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: John Grant

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

Level crossings in the area should be re-examined.

Full text:

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.

Support

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167302

Received: 18/10/2018

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
EDUCATION
Support allocation of sites for education provision and early delivery of primary places but needs flexibility for future expansion, and contributions towards SEN and 6th form college.

Council supports allocation of sites for 5 primary schools and 2 secondary schools. SPD and subsequent planning agreements will need to build in flexibility regarding the release of reserve land to expand these schools should additional capacity be needed.

Requirement to deliver primary places in time for the first occupations is an essential infrastructure element and commitment to support this objective is welcomed.

Council agree with general location of education facilities having regard to location of housing areas and broad movement network to secure safe and sustainable access to schools. Final location and arrangement for school sites should be determined through outline planning applications, in conjunction with further work on flood risk.

Land has been reserved for a Special Educational Needs school and Sixth Form facility. In addition require financial contribution towards costs of these facilities. Whilst provision will made in planning agreement, details of the need and scale of these facilities will form part of the education review mechanism.

Full text:

Full representations in attached document