5. Creating the Place - Section 1: A Well Connected Place

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 73

Support

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167738

Received: 03/07/2019

Respondent: Miss Lisa Mancuso

Representation:

5: 1 A WELL CONNECTED PLACE

I wanted to say how important the plans to include Equestrians are, and as riders how much we appreciate our inclusion.

There are a lot of horse riders in the area, so creating the proposed bridleways will link up adjacent villages and create a much wider network of off road riding for us, which allows for much safer hacking.

As mentioned in the plans, the provision of soft surfaces to ride on, along with places to mount will be hugely beneficial and valued additions to the access itself.

We look forward to hopefully riding these tracks one day!!!!

Full text:

I wanted to say how important the plans to include Equestrians are, and as riders how much we appreciate our inclusion.

There are a lot of horse riders in the area, so creating the proposed bridleways will link up adjacent villages and create a much wider network of off road riding for us, which allows for much safer hacking.

As mentioned in the plans, the provision of soft surfaces to ride on, along with places to mount will be hugely beneficial and valued additions to the access itself.

We look forward to hopefully riding these tracks one day!!!!

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167784

Received: 09/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Marc Zwierzanski

Representation:

FIX C CAMBOURNE TO CAMBRIDGE HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTE AND STOPS

The plans include moving the bus stop serving Highfields towards Cambourne. This is unacceptable and a blatant disregard of existing village requirements! The site is not directly connected to the A428 and the proposed access routes are woefully inadequate to serve a development of this size.
Traffic entering and leaving the site will use Highfields and Hardwick as rat runs should there be any issue with between the Childerley roundabout and the A428 and this simple fact appears to have been brushed aside!

Full text:

The plans include moving the bus stop serving Highfields towards Cambourne. This is unacceptable and a blatant disregard of existing village requirements! The site is not directly connected to the A428 and the proposed access routes are woefully inadequate to serve a development of this size.
Traffic entering and leaving the site will use Highfields and Hardwick as rat runs should there be any issue with between the Childerley roundabout and the A428 and this simple fact appears to have been brushed aside!

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167913

Received: 13/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Stewart

Representation:

FIX B STRATEGIC WALKING AND CYCLING CONNECTIONS

Document in general, and in particular Fix B, needs to clarify relationship with Caldecote Village SPD, and how any differences get resolved. Ideally they should be made consistent. E.g. current draft of Caldecote Village SPD proposes slightly different placement of strategic pedestrian routes vs. Fig 22 and Fig 28.

Full text:

Document in general, and in particular Fix B, needs to clarify relationship with Caldecote Village SPD, and how any differences get resolved. Ideally they should be made consistent. E.g. current draft of Caldecote Village SPD proposes slightly different placement of strategic pedestrian routes vs. Fig 22 and Fig 28.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167917

Received: 21/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Stewart

Representation:

FIX C CAMBOURNE TO CAMBRIDGE HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTES AND STOPS

Bus stop locations must not be to the detriment of Caldecote residents

Full text:

Fix C - It is unclear whether it is envisaged that the easterly bus stop location will be in addition to the existing 'Caldecote turn' bus stop or whether it is to replace it.

-- If the former then it needs to be sited far enough away so that the existing stop remains viable (e.g. allow 55mph travel between the stops).

-- If the latter, then the bus stop and connecting pathways must be positioned so that the walking distance for Highfields Caldecote residents is not increased. (It should be noted that for many Caldecote residents, the existing bus stop location already exceeds the 800m target from this SPD. Whilst it may be impractical for Bourn Airfield to improve this, it must not make this situation any worse.)

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167967

Received: 20/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Yeadon

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET
The presentation correctly says "good transport connections will be important in making the new village successful". I agree. Why then is the village not connected directly to the A428? Why will you be making residents travel through lower capacity roads to get out of the village? I object for these reasons. The current road layout will inevitably lead to more traffic on minor roads including those through the local villages rather than getting the best use out of the adjacent major road the A428.
This need changing now before the layout is set in stone.

Full text:

The presentation correctly say "good transport connections will be important in making the new village successful". I agree. Why then is the village not connected directly to the A428. Why will you be making residents travel through lower capacity roads to get out of the village. I object for these reasons. The current road layout will inevitably lead to more traffic on minor roads including those through the local villages rather than getting the best use out of the adjacent major road the A428.
This need changing now before the layout is set in stone.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167968

Received: 21/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Stewart

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Needs to consider measures to mitigate the traffic impact of the new village on surrounding villages and roads (Policy SS/7 8.c.i) - especially traffic heading south.

Full text:

Although Fix A attempts to cover SS/7 policy 8.c.ii and iii, it does nothing to address SS/7 8.c.i ("Include measures to mitigate the traffic impact of the new village on surrounding villages and roads").

The SPD particularly needs to outline the measures to be taken to mitigate the impact from traffic heading south (e.g. to Royston and beyond), which is poorly served by public transport today (and no improvements are proposed). The natural route for such traffic is along the Main Street through Caldecote to Longstowe - this is very narrow in places and cannot safely accommodate an increase in traffic. It is unclear that additional traffic calming measures in Caldecote (e.g. speed humps) would encourage vehicles to use longer alternative routes.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167984

Received: 11/07/2019

Respondent: Miss Jane Dobinson

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Objector lives on the Broadway and the traffic already speeds down the Broadway, through the village. The BAD states that people will be unable to turn left onto the Broadway. However, residents will be able to go round a roundabout and turn right down the Broadway.

Traffic calming is therefore a necessity.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167985

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jean Jenner

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Objects strongly to access on Broadway given the rat-race to Royston and how the speed limit is ignored. The road across to Broadway will be an accident hazard.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 167999

Received: 24/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Michael Richmond

Representation:

1B AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES WALKING AND CYCLING

The schools should be located in car-free zones, so as to encourage walking, cycling and "park and stride".

Full text:

The schools should be located in car-free zones, so as to encourage walking, cycling and "park and stride".

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168004

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs E Elbourn

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Getting traffic to and away from the new development is not being considered thoroughly enough, given current thinking means a huge load is weighted on The Broadway, making Bourn and surrounding villages the rat runs that Knapwell and Dry Drayton have become. Exits should lead on to the A428; the lives, environment and safety of existing villagers are more important than too many junctions on the A428.

Full text:

After visiting the planning consultation meeting in Bourn earlier in the month I would like to object to the specific failings of the proposed new town of 3500 houses on the Bourn airfield.

Despite huge opposition from all local communities and their parish councils the development seems to be going ahead which really begs the question are our comments ,concerns and objections ever taken in to account? What is the point of these paper exercises if the council then ploughs on disregarding our objections and the comments of the Inspector?
He wrote in his report para 87:

'We are mindful of the significant levels of opposition to the Bourn Airfield proposal expressed by the local community and others, including fears of coalescence and traffic implications, including local traffic management issues relating to the Broadway. There is a degree of SCEPTICISM from the local community about whether their concerns can be adequately addressed. But there is nothing to indicate that these concerns cannot be satisfactorily addressed through the development management process and further guidance provided by SPD'

I feel getting traffic to and away from the new development is not being considered thoroughly enough. In the light that current thinking will mean a huge load weighted on The Broadway this will make Bourn and surrounding villages the obvious rat runs that Knapwell and Dry Drayton have become. Use common sense and have the exits ONLY leading on to the A428. Do not use excuses like cost and too many junctions on to the A428 these are not sound. The lives, environment , and safety of the existing villagers are more important than that.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168007

Received: 17/07/2019

Respondent: British Horse Society

Representation:

1A A STREET NETWORK THAT INTEGRATES MOVEMENT AND PLACE

Horse riding should be included in the discussion surrounding the bridleway network, not just implying these are for pedestrians and cyclists.

1B AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES WALKING AND CYCLING
These should be NMU routes.

Full text:

Well Connected Places
"A fundamental principle of the new village will be to provide excellent connectivity and access for residents and visitors, by a range of modes, with an emphasis on sustainable, low‐carbon / low emission and active modes of travel ‐ walking, cycling and public transport (Policy TI/2 and SS/7)"

1A A street network that integrates movement and place
* "A defined network of on and off-street walking and cycling routes and bridleways which provide connections with the surrounding area, providing access to existing facilities and allowing residents of nearby settlements to easily access the new facilities on the site"

It appears from these statements that the aim is to use the bridleway network simply to enhance a shared pedestrian and cycle network from which equestrians will be excluded. This is unacceptable.

Horse riding should be included in the first paragraph and equestrians should not be
excluded from the new networks.

1B An environment that promotes walking and cycling
"* Contributions to the enhancement of the surrounding cycle network, including potential new routes that link eastward to Cambridge along the A428 corridor"

These should be NMU routes.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168008

Received: 17/07/2019

Respondent: Shelford and District Bridleways Group

Representation:

FIX B STRATEGIC WALKING AND CYCLING CONNECTIONS

No NMU routes are being considered for the woodland.

Walking and pedestrian access is implied in the wording - any links to the bridleway network need to be NMU. Enhancement needs to be defined - tarmac surfaces on bridleways are not enhancements.

Figure 28 does not include the routes discussed at the meeting with the BHS.

Full text:

4B Access to natural environments
We support the references to bridleway creation in woodland settings set out in this
section although it appears to conflict with comments referred to in other sections.

Fix G Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding routes
We appreciate the creation and inclusion of equestrian routes in this section but do no understand the need for separate walking and cycling routes where there is a bridleway which is available to all users?

Fig. 47 | Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding
We support this proposed scheme although as previously stated, we would like to see the inclusion of a circular Restrict Byway open to carriage drivers. Whilst we appreciate that this might be of concern, it would be a bold and progressive step in much the same way that the hugely popular Cambourne peripheral bridleway was when it was first constructed.

6 Cohesive, well‐planned and well‐governed
Somewhere in the SPD there should be defined the responsibility and accountability for the maintenance of PROW's and a requirement for them to be maintained to be accessible all
year around.

5. Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Non Motorised User Infrastructure Fig 55
1 Improved walking and cycling network
Refers to riding in the text so horse riding should be included in the first column.
2 Cycleway Improvement
What provision is being made for equestrians on this route?
3 Rights of Way Network
Does not include access for carriage drivers.

6.5 DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY
No reference to the delivery of rights of way network other than cycle and pedestrian routes.

APPENDIX 1: BOURN AIRFIELD LOCAL PLAN POLICY 94 BOURN AIRFIELD NEW VILLAGE | A SPATIAL
FRAMEWORK & INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN | CONSULTATION DRAFT
Policy SS/7: New Village at Bourn Airfield
No reference to the Rights of Way network.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168012

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: C Grainger

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Number of cars use the village as a rat run; there has been a serious road traffic accident, reported thefts from the road side and buildings are experiencing cracks due to thundering of lorries.

Full text:

I would like to object to the proposal of the draft SPD Bourn airfield development as a resident of Knapwell.

We already have a huge number of cars using the little village as a rat run. There has already been a serious road traffic accident, with life threatening injuries.

There have been reported thefts from along the road side. Some of the older buildings are already experiencing cracks due to the thundering of lorries and HGV's who are using the village as a rat run. The council is not supporting the local population in this plan.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168013

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Guilden Morden Parish Council

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

The Parish Council believes that future transport arrangements should include the new Bourn Airfield development

Attachments:

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168014

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Ashton

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

The development needs direct access to the A428. The current access plans will result in a significant increase in traffic on St Neots road and rat-running through the villages of Hardwick, Caldecote and Comberton. It will also mean that residents in Bourn airfield will have difficulties accessing the development.
I object to the SPD on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient ingress/ egress for residents and does not sufficiently mitigate the impact on St Neots road and surrounding villages. Direct access to A428 is needed

Full text:

The development needs direct access to the A428. The current access plans will result in a significant increase in traffic on St Neots road and rat-running through the villages of Hardwick, Caldecote and Comberton. It will also mean that residents in Bourn airfield will have difficulties accessing the development.
I object to the SPD on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient ingress/ egress for residents and does not sufficiently mitigate the impact on St Neots road and surrounding villages. Direct access to A428 is needed

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168026

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Ashton

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

The development must have direct access to the A428 and it's own healthcare facilities.
Without these, the development will have unacceptable negative impact on the surrounding villages and its future residents.

Full text:

The development must have direct access to the A428 and it's own healthcare facilities.
Without these, the development will have unacceptable negative impact on the surrounding villages and its future residents.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168027

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Oatham

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

1. There should be direct access onto the A428. If the traffic comes directly onto the Childerley roundabout it will cause congestion both on the St Neots Road and HIghfields Road and through the village of Caldecote.


2. The HQPT system must be kept completely separate from the Childerley roundabout and the St Neots Road. No traffic lights, no possibility of cars entering by mistake.

Full text:

1. There should be direct access onto the A428. If the traffic comes directly onto the Childerley roundabout it will cause congestion both on the St Neots Road and HIghfields Road and through the village of Caldecote.


2. The HQPT system must be kept completely separate from the Childerley roundabout and the St Neots Road. No traffic lights, no possibility of cars entering by mistake.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168043

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Hardwick Evangelical Church

Representation:

If you are really serious about walking, cycling and public transport, make these things the easiest and most accessible - ie put the busway and cycle way through the middle of the village (currently the route of the "primary street") and move the "village centre" and the community building to the middle of the village rather than the northeastern corner. The current plan encourages driving locally.

Full text:

The SPD claims "A fundamental principle of the new village will be to provide excellent connectivity and access for residents and visitors, by a range of modes, with an emphasis on sustainable, low-carbon / low-emission and active modes
of travel - walking, cycling and public transport". This is a great objective but the design suggests that the emphasis is on facilitating private car journeys, whilst making it possible for those who really want to use the bus or cycle to do so if they are committed enough to travel further than they would if they drove. If you are really serious about walking, cycling and public transport, make these things the easiest and most accessible - ie put the busway and cycle way through the middle of the village (currently the route of the "primary street") and move the "village centre" and the community building to the middle of the village rather than the northeastern corner.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168049

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Hardwick Evangelical Church

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

I recognise there is a need for new housing. I would like the new development to be as good as possible for those who come to live there, and for those who already live in surrounding villages. The potential car journeys generated by this development that are forced onto local roads because there is no direct access to the A428 is a major concern. You're expecting traffic queues out of the village (see section on busway needing dedicated lane at roundabout). Please re-visit this major omission for all our sakes.

Full text:

I recognise there is a need for new housing. I would like the new development to be as good as possible for those who come to live there, and for those who already live in surrounding villages. The potential car journeys generated by this development that are forced onto local roads because there is no direct access to the A428 is a major concern. You're expecting traffic queues out of the village (see section on busway needing dedicated lane at roundabout). Please re-visit this major omission for all our sakes.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168051

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Fenella Wrigley

Representation:

Planning north of London is continuing piecemeal. Different planning bodies within transport, housing and employment from Government down, have their own agendas. Include Oxford to Cambridge Arc; Oxford to Cambridge Railway, Cambridge Metro and Cambourne to Cambridge Busway together with associated housing developments and employment plans. Uncoordinated, eventually leading to chaos.

Live in Hardwick. Doctor and dentist ten minute drive in Comberton. Bus takes an hour by Citi 4 and number 18. Nothing will persuade me to travel by bus as long as I can drive. Wishful thinking to expect many new residents to use bus, however swift. Residents will have a multiplicity of destinations inevitably involving impractical journeys using at least two buses.

At least five or six thousand cars. No connection planned between A428 and M11 at Girton or direct connection to A428. Folly will become more apparent as building proceeds.

Six planning objectives yet you fail miserably on first aim: that development should be "A well-connected place".

Traffic should be able to connect with national road network at earliest opportunity. Result will be thousands of cars trying to get onto faster road, meandering about on local minor roads seeking to avoid congestion. Adjacent villages have problems making right turn eastwards, across traffic, to leave for Cambridge. Causes traffic to pile up at village exit.

Highways Agency has doubts about transport plans for development. Connection to A428 should be built now together with A428 connection to Girton Interchange.

Full text:

I wish to comment on the draft Bourn Airfield New Village Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Overall planning for this area north of London is continuing piecemeal. Different planning bodies within transport, housing and employment from the Government down, have their own agendas. These include the Oxford to Cambridge Arc (a glint in the planner's eye as an outer ring road to London, parallel to the M25?); the Oxford to Cambridge Railway, the Cambridge Metro and the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway together with all the associated housing developments and employment plans for this vast corridor. It is uncoordinated, eventually leading to chaos.

I live in Hardwick and my doctor and dentist are a ten minute drive away in Comberton village. If I go by bus it takes at least an hour by Citi4 and then bus number 18. Nothing will persuade me to travel by bus and leave the car at home as long as I can drive. It is wishful thinking to expect many new residents to use the bus, however swift, when they will need to connect with a second bus to reach their destination. They need to go beyond the end of the bus route in the centre of Cambridge. Like me, the residents of Bourn Airfield will have a multiplicity of destinations inevitably involving an impractical journey using at least two buses.

There will be at least five or six thousand cars based in the new development. No connection is planned between the A428 and the M11 at Girton. No direct connection to the A428 is planned from Bourn Airfield. The folly of this will become more apparent as building proceeds.

You have set six planning objectives yet you fail miserably on the very first aim:- that the development should be "A well-connected place".

That means that the traffic it generates should be able to connect with the national road network at the earliest opportunity. Instead no direct connection is planned to the A428. The result will be thousands of cars trying to get onto a faster road, meandering about on the local minor roads seeking to avoid the congestion. Already the adjacent villages have problems making the right turn eastwards, across the traffic, to leave for Cambridge. This causes traffic to pile up at the village exit.

The absence of a direct connection to the A428 is an example of disastrous piecemeal planning and of penny-pinching at its worst. In five or ten years' time the connection will become a costly, desperate last resort to try to solve the gridlock; and at whose expense?

The Highways Agency itself has its doubts about the transport plans for the Bourn Airfield development. This connection to the A428 should be built now together with the A428 connection to Girton Interchange.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168053

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Tracy Collins

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET/ 5G NOISE, LIGHT & AIR QUALITY

This will cause a huge increase in traffic down St Neots rd Hardwick, which is already a busy road.
Its already busy at rush times getting in and out of our properties and this increase will make it a nightmare for residents here.
Not to mention the increased in noise and air pollution coming straight past our doors. No chance of leaving windows open either.
This will affect our health and ruin our environment

Full text:

This will cause a huge increase in traffic down St Neots rd Hardwick, which is already a busy road.
Its already busy at rush times getting in and out of our properties and this increase will make it a nightmare for residents here.
Not to mention the increased in noise and air pollution coming straight past our doors. No chance of leaving windows open either.
This will affect our health and ruin our environment

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168054

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Tracy Collins

Representation:

1D MANAGING PRIVATE AND SERVICE VEHICLES

This plan will necessitate increased traffic and a possible additional busway down St Neots rd. If so, the line of mature trees (over 60 years old) will be chopped down.
How can you justify that now, when we know how trees affect our health and environment?

These trees have been there absorbing noise and pollution for decades. Any plan that involves adding MORE traffic, but removing mature trees is entirely irresponsible. Fences are no substitute at all, as you well know.

It's hard to be vibrant when you've been awake all night listening to traffic and wheezing.

Full text:

This plan will necessitate increased traffic and a possible additional busway down St Neots rd. If so, the line of mature trees (over 60 years old) will be chopped down.
How can you justify that now, when we know how trees affect our health and environment?
These trees have been there absorbing noise and pollution for decades. Any plan that involves adding MORE traffic, but removing mature trees is entirely irresponsible. Fences are no substitute at all, as you well know

It's hard to be vibrant when you've been awake all night listening to traffic and wheezing

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168057

Received: 27/07/2019

Respondent: Elizabeth Frost

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Green areas are being planned between houses and the A428 to combat noise and encourage wildlife at Bourn. At Hardwick this barrier and wildlife area will be removed unless traffic uses the A428. It is essential that an exit from Bourn directly on to the A428 is built otherwise the noise and pollution from traffic along St. Neots will be disastrous.

Full text:

Green areas are being planned between houses and the A428 to combat noise and encourage wildlife at Bourn. At Hardwick this barrier and wildlife area will be removed unless traffic uses the A428. It is essential that an exit from Bourn directly on to the A428 is built otherwise the noise and pollution from traffic along St.Neots will be disastrous.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168061

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Representation:

1A A STREET NETWORK THAT INTEGRATES MOVEMENT AND PLACE

Support: 'Site access points from the surrounding road network which are safe and convenient for pedestrians and cyclists'.

Oppose: 'A Primary Street which forms the spine of the site for all users...serves the village centre'. Primary road running through middle of site will expose more people to air pollution and road danger. Instead, primary road should run along northern fringe of site, in order to protect people from pollution and road danger caused by excessive motor traffic.

Oppose: 'Secondary streets which provide direct access to other areas of the site and are designed to accommodate potential bus routes'. Streets designed as bus routes tend to encourage higher speeds and more dangerous manoeuvres by car drivers. Therefore, (a) the dedicated 'high-quality' public transport route should run more centrally through site, (b) secondary streets that may host bus routes should be carefully selected in advance, and (c) bus gates should be used wherever needed to prevent rat-running by car drivers.

Add: 'walking and cycling routes, whether they be on-street or off-street, should be the locus of social activity around buildings, therefore building frontages should always face and open up towards any adjacent walking or cycle route.'

Full text:

The following comments are in regard to Principle 1A.

We support the following statement: 'Site access points from the surrounding road network which are safe and convenient for pedestrians and cyclists'.

We oppose the following statement: 'A Primary Street which forms the spine of the site for all users...serves the village centre'. This is because a primary road running through the middle of the site will expose more people to air pollution and road danger. Instead, the primary road should run along the northern fringe of the site, in order to protect people from pollution and road danger caused by excessive motor traffic.

We oppose the following statement: 'Secondary streets which provide direct access to other areas of the site and are designed to accommodate potential bus routes'. This is because streets designed as bus routes tend to encourage higher speeds and more dangerous manoeuvres by car drivers. Therefore, (a) the dedicated 'high-quality' public transport route should run more centrally through the site, (b) the secondary streets that may host bus routes should be carefully selected in advance, and (c) bus gates should be used wherever needed to prevent rat-running by car drivers.

We add the following statement to Principle 1A: walking and cycling routes, whether they be on-street or off-street, should be the locus of social activity around buildings, therefore building frontages should always face and open up towards any adjacent walking or cycle route.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1B.

We add the following statement to Principle 1B: the cycle parking in new buildings must follow the design specifications laid out in policy TI/3 and either a cycle parking guide SPD when it is published by South Cambridgeshire District Council, or until such time, the guide (and its successors) currently published by Cambridge City Council.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1C.

We oppose the following statement: 'small-scale passenger parking facilities could also be provided on the site adjacent to the HQPT stops'. Even small-scale parking harms the surrounding walking and shopping environment. Only blue badge parking and cycle parking would be acceptable here. For all others, the Park and Ride service is available off-site.


The following comments are in regard to Principle 1D.

We oppose the following statement: 'Parking should be designed in accordance with the guidelines set out in Policy TI/3 and the associated table at Fig 11: Parking Provision, with an aspiration for low car ownership.' The South Cambridgeshire car parking provision laid out in TI/3 encourages high car ownership rates and is in direct conflict with the aspiration for low car ownership. Therefore, the principle should be rewritten to allow for lower levels of car parking provision than specified by TI/3 and figure 11 of the Local Plan.

The statement 'Limiting the number of through-routes' is not strong enough, it should be written as 'There will be no through-routes for vehicles through residential areas' to prevent rat-running.

The suggestion of 'informal pedestrian crossings' does not give priority to pedestrians. Therefore, in order to give priority there must be more formal, Zebra pedestrian crossings.

We add the following statement: 'Streets should incorporate planted verges adjacent to the carriageway, especially streets with driveways, in order to allow room for dropped kerbs and street furniture while ensuring that footways and/or cycleways can be built unobstructed and without adverse camber.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix A.

We add the following statement: 'All the new or reconfigured junctions must be designed with safe and convenient walking and cycling routes.'

We oppose the following statement: 'The development will create a primary street linking the main access points, which must...serve the village centre'. It is a terrible mistake to put the primary street through the village centre, it will create a car-dominated environment and discourage people from walking to and around the shops. Instead, the village centre should be accessed by car through secondary streets and it should never be possible to use the village centre as a driving through-route.

We add the following statement: 'The primary street should be routed as far to the north and distant from houses as possible, keeping it close to the existing road infrastructure and keeping pollution, noise and road danger away from residents.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix B.

There is a contradiction here between 'A shared pedestrian and cycle route' and 'Segregated pedestrian and cycle routes'. It is unclear which is meant where. We would delete the word 'shared' and instead replace it with 'segregated'.

We add the following statement: 'Cycle routes along urban streets must be adjacent to a separate, dedicated footway. Away from streets, cycle routes should be built with a separate, dedicated footway unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that pedestrian usage will be sufficiently low to allow sharing. For design and construction, use standards found in manuals such as Designing for Cycle Traffic by John Parkin.'

We add the following statement: 'Strategic walking and cycling routes must have continuity and priority over motor traffic at side-road crossings and driveways.'

We add the following statement: 'Routes must be fully accessible to people with disabilities who are using mobility aids such as mobility scooters, adapted cycles and wheelchairs.'


The following comments are in regard to Fix C.

We oppose the following statement: 'combined walking and cycling path with a minimum 3m width'. A segregated combined walking and cycling path must be at least 4.5m wide. The proposed minimum path width of 3m is much too narrow for segregation, because it would allow only 1.5m for the footway and 1.5m for a single direction cycleway, without enough space for a bi-directional cycleway.

We add the following statements: 'There must be a safe buffer between the busway and the cycleway of at least 2m grass verge.'

'There must be safe and convenient crossing points designed with cycling-friendly curvature such that people walking and cycling approach the crossing in a direction perpendicular to the movement of buses, with clear and very long visibility splays in both directions, and ideally with a 3m-deep refuge island between the bus lanes.'

'No chicanes or guardrails are to be used, because these block visibility, exclude some people with disabilities from using the path, pose an obstacle that will cause injuries, create a dangerous distraction from moving buses, and cause conflict between users of the path.'

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168068

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Ellis-Evans

Representation:

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Direct access to A428 is essential: some residents will have to catch another bus within the city; others will work outside Cambridge in surrounding villages and beyond. Rush hour traffic: 07:00-10:00 and 15:00-19:00 is a major issue in Cambourne, Toft, Hardwick, Comberton and Bourne and the new development will further exacerbate this situation. Highways England have drastically underestimated the amount of traffic usage on these smaller roads including the extra traffic from the new development. The developers need to finance the resolution of these very significant issues.

Full text:

There is no direct access to the A428. This is essential as: (a) not everyone will be working in central Cambridge. It would be necessary for a proportion residents to take more than one bus to get to their workplace. This will be too time-consuming and they will travel by car for convenience. (B) not everybody' s workplace will be within the city of Cambridge. It will be necessary for residents to travel both within South Cambridgeshire and beyond and they will need easy of access to the A428. If this is not available they will use the surrounding villages of Cambourne, Toft, Hardwick, Comberton and Barton to access major roads. These villages are already heavily used from 07:00-10:00 and 15:00-19:00 and if there is any major issue on the major roads there is a constant stream of traffic. If these issues are not properly addressed at this stage, life will become unbearable for the residents of these villages. Highways England have drastically underestimated the amount of traffic usage on these smaller roads as well as the amount of traffic which will emerge from the development. The solution to this is for the developers to finance the resolution of these very significant traffic issues.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168071

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Dr John Ellis-Evans

Representation:

Residents of the development will not just work in central Cambridge as the proposal suggests.

The proposed provision of a single access point to the A428 via the St Neots road is totally inadequate for a community of this size. It needs a direct link to the A428 dual carriageway.

The Bus proposal will serve a single point in the City requiring further bus rides to get to and from where people actually work.

These issues will lead to rat-running through Bourn Valley villages and traffic calming the entire local road network to address this is too ridiculous for words.

Full text:

Residents of the development will not just work in central Cambridge as the proposal suggests. The proposed provision of a single access point to the A428 via the St Neots road is totally inadequate for a community of this size. It needs a direct link to the A428 dual carriageway. The Bus proposal will serve a single point in the City requiring further bus rides to get to and from where people actually work. These issues will lead to rat-running through Bourn Valley villages and traffic calming the entire local road network to address this is too ridiculous for words.

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168073

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Ben Strutt

Representation:

1C ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES

One of the strategic objectives of the Bourn Airfield Development is started as the avoidance of coalescence, ensuring Bourn Airfield is a 'distinct new village'. Providing direct transport links to Cambourne and Bourn Broadway from the west side of a new development at the airfield fundamentally undermines this strategic statement. Locating the village 'centre' in the North West corner of the airfield fundamentally undermines this strategic statement.

Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168076

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

FIX C CAMBOURNE TO CAMBRIDGE HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTE AND STOPS

The Council's current position on the route of the rapid transit scheme has come out of numerous discussions with the developer team and the GCP team. This concluded that it would be best located in the north of the site near the A428 as this appears to best balance the various needs of the project (catchment, speed, engineering requirements etc.). In the longer term, the Mayor has referred to innovative mass modes of transit. It would be useful if land could be safeguarded where practicably possible, to allow future evolution of the project.

Ultimately, the mass transit link will need to offer high speed and reliability, and should benefit from a good catchment. The route as shown in the draft SPD appears to meet the needs of the GCP.

Full text:

The attached note sets out the County Council officer comments on the Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document in response to a consultation by South Cambridgeshire District Council. Whilst local County Members have been made aware of the consultation, this response does not include their comments or considerations or those of the Economy and Environment Committee which will endorse this response at its meeting on 19th September.

This response includes the comments of the following Council services and functions:
- Transport Assessment
- Education
- County Planning Minerals and Waste
- Historic Environment
- Local Lead Flood Authority
- Public Health

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168086

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Alan Everitt

Representation:

1C ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES

Access to High Quality Public Transport refers to travel to Cambridge city which really understates where residents will need to travel to. It falls short of delivering a mandate for connection of public transport to rail, business parks, biomedical centres, retail parks and places that people would otherwise use their cars.

Dependence on this expected shift to public transport is to risk that St Neots Road can carry car traffic if anticipated shift does not materialise. For a town of 3500 homes, TRICS rates would suggest traffic numbers pro rata with Cambourne, likely 30,000 vehicles in and out per day, around 2000 vehicles departing per morning peak. As traffic heading east is 77% I anticipate with no connection to A428 will more double traffic heading down St Neots Road, Hardwick - and this is without traffic from developments in St Neots and Cambourne West. To offer retrospective fixes if monitoring shows roads are inadequate means further long periods of misery while A428 connections are built.

Experience of Cambourne shows task ahead. For proof that Public transport even within site is not solution, evidence full carpark that serves Morrisons, Medical centre, Library and other retail outlets.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168091

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Alan Everitt

Representation:

1D MANAGING PRIVATE AND SERVICE VEHICLES

State "private vehicles are the least preferred transport" is to ignore fact that a good proportion of traffic will be heading east, towards M11 and access south. SPD should state what evidence is available to support how traffic can be accommodated by public transport?

State that private cars are essential for only "some" people simply wrong. Ignores everyday life. People do not just go to work in morning and return home after work. There are after work activities that require flexible transport, include drop offs/pick up for nursery care and breakfast clubs, workers with something heavy to carry, shoppers for supermarkets, DIY shops, Garden Centres and retail centres - that's why such places provide car parks. Leisure and other commitments outside Development.

Aspiration of development with no cars ignores fact pretty much all residents will have 1 if not 2 cars and will use them.

SPD should state that evidence is required on all figures presented in Travel Plan and Transport Assessment to ensure Developers can be taken to task. Monitoring is insufficient as it provides developer with an open invitation to be economical with Plan on which development is based.

Connection to A428 is a MUST and traffic figures based upon Cambourne trip rates and traffic pattern support this. Direct connection up and over A428 will allow Busway to run on north of A428 avoiding destruction of village life in Hardwick.

Attachments: