Cambridge South East Transport Evidence Base Appendices

September 2013

Commercial Estates Group

Cambridge South East

FINAL

Transport Evidence Base:

Cambridge Local Plan 2014 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan

September 2013

APPENDICES

Produced by:

Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 32a Stoney Street The Lace Market Nottingham NG1 1LL

Tel: 0115 9886905

Contact: Jon Parker Email: [email protected] Web: www.itpworld.net Appendix A: Detailed Analysis of Alternative Strategic Sites containing the following documents:

A (i) Census 2011 Map-based analysis A (ii) Accession Mapping (Public Transport) and Core Accessibility Indicators A (iii) Analysis of CRSM 29013 Transport Modelling Projections for Fringe Sites and Rural Sites (Cambridgeshire County Council) A (iv) Assessment of alternative sites travel distances (by road) and\ emission levels A (v) Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Draft Transport Strategy A (vi) Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against the Cambridgeshire County Council Local Transport Plan A (vii) Detailed Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against NPPF Criteria A (viii) Assessment of existing housing developments and their approach to transport promotion

Appendix B: Deliverability Evidence containing the following documents:

 B (i) Note on deliverability and programming of A14 improvements  B (ii) Note on deliverability of Hills Road cycle and bus improvements

Appendix C: Cambourne Case Study - ‘Lessons from Cambourne’ Review

Appendix D: Public Transport Assessment, covering:

 Journey times and service frequency issues  Accessibility by bus and rail  Cambridge South East and the public transport solution for this location

Appendix E: Sustainable Transport and Travel Plan Assessment, covering:

 ‘Smarter Travel’ solutions  Residential and workplace travel planning and their role in enabling development  Comparative analysis of existing residential travel plans  Cambridge South East and the sustainable transport solution for this location

Appendix F: Traffic Management and Infrastructure Assessment, covering:

 Detailed evidence base for infrastructure requirements of alternative sites  The infrastructure needed to connect Cambridge South East to Cambridge

A (i) Census 2011 Map-based analysis

A1096

Travel to Work by Active Modes % of Working Population Northstowe )" <15% A14(T) A10 15 - 30% Waterbeach )" 30 - 45% 45 - 60% >60% Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) A1303 )" J13 A1303 Cambourne Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" M11 Cambridge South East A1309 Method of Travel to Work (Census 2011): Walk or Cycle J11 A1307 1:100,000 A10 A1301

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 A A A1096

Travel to Work by Bus % of Working Population Northstowe )" <5% A14(T) A10 5 - 10% Waterbeach )" 10 - 15% 15 - 20% >20% Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) A1303 )" J13 A1303 Cambourne Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" M11 Cambridge South East A1309 Method of Travel to Work (Census 2011): Bus J11 A1307 1:100,000 A10 A1301

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 B A A10 Travel to Work by Car Northstowe )" % of Working Population A14(T) <25% Waterbeach )" 25 - 40% 40 - 55% 55 - 70% >70% Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential J14 Development Site SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) A1303 )" J13 A1303 Cambourne Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" M11 Cambridge South East A1309 Method of Travel to Work

J11 (Census 2011): Car Driver A1307

A10 A1301 1:100,000

A603 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 C A A1096

Travel to Work by Bus or Rail % of Working Population Northstowe )" <5% A14(T) A10 5 - 10% Waterbeach )" 10 - 15% 15 - 20% >20% Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) A1303 )" J13 A1303 Cambourne Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" M11 Cambridge South East A1309 Method of Travel to Work (Census 2011): Public Transport J11 A1307 1:100,000 A10 A1301

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 D A A10 Sustainable Travel to Work Northstowe )" % of working population A14(T) <15% Waterbeach )" 15 - 30% 30 - 45% 45 - 60% >60% Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential J14 Development Site SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" M11 Cambridge South East A1309 Method of Travel to Work J11 (Census 2011): PT, Cycle or Walk A1307

A1301 A10 1:100,000

A603 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 E A Key Destinations Northstowe Type ") ' Education A14(T) ' Employment ") Retail Waterbeach ' ' Transport Proposed Cambridge South East Site 23 Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential 13 Development Site 2 Average Cambridge Travel J14 3 to Work by Cycle Distance SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE 16 (3.7km) A130 9

") A428 (T) ") A130 3 J13 22 Cambourne 25 20 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE 4 17

A603 14

J12 18

A11 98 A11 34 19 1 ") M11 Cambridge South East 24 21 Average Cambridge Cycle Catchments J11 of Proposed Development Sites A130 7

A10 A130 1 1:100,000

A603 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 F A ")

Key Destinations A11 98 ' Education ' Employment A14(T) ' Retail ' Transport Proposed Development Site Cycle Catchment Distance 1.5km

J14 3km A130 7 5km 8km

! Average Travel to Work ! ! A428 (T) Cycle Distance (3.7km) SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ") A130 3 J13 25 Bourn Airfield ' CAMBRIDGE '4

A603

J12

M11 Cycling Catchment of Bourn Airfield Proposed' Development Site

1:75,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 G A ")

A11 98 Cycle Catchment Distance 1.5km

3km

A14(T) 5km 8km

! Average Travel to Work !

! Cycle Distance (3.7km) Proposed Development Site Existing Residential Development Site

J14 Key Destinations A130 7 ' Education ' Employment

Retail ") A428 (T) ' ") A130 3 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE J13 25 Cambourne Bourn Airfield ' ' Transport CAMBRIDGE '4

J12

M11

Cycling Catchment of Cambourne A603 Existing Development Site

1:75,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 H A '13 '2 J14 '3 A428 (T) '16 EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Cycle Catchment Distance A130 9 A14(T) 1.5km A130 3 3km J13 '25 '20 '22 4 5km ' 17 15 ' 8km CAMBRIDGE ' !

'5 ! Average Travel to Work ! ! Cycle Distance (3.7km) A603 A603 Proposed Cambridge SE Site 14 ' Key Destinations

J12 '18 ' Education ' Employment A11 34 '19 ' Retail '1 ") ' Transport Cambridge South East M11 '24 A11 (T) A130 9 '21

J11 A130 7 A10

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

'8 '9 Cycling Catchment of Cambridge SE Proposed Development Site

1:75,000 A505 '12 A130 1

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 I A A11 23

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Cycle Catchment Distance 1.5km

3km 5km A109 6 8km

! Average Travel to Work ! ! Cycle Distance (3.7km) Proposed Development Site Key Destinations ' Education ' Employment ' Retail ' Transport Northstowe SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ")

A14(T)

'23

A10 Cycling Catchment of Northstowe

A130 9 Proposed Development Site '13 2 ' 1:75,000 J14 '3 CAMBRIDGE M11 16 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 ' Figure A 1 J A

' ' A11 23

Cycle Catchment Distance 1.5km

3km 5km A10 8km

! Average Travel to Work ! ! Cycle Distance (3.7km) Proposed Development Site Key Destinations ' Education EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE ' Employment ' Retail Waterbeach SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ") ' Transport

'23

A130 9 '13 A14(T) '2 J14 '3

A428 (T) CAMBRIDGE Cycling Catchment of Waterbeach M11 16 ' Proposed Development Site A130 7

1:75,000 A130 3 A11 34 J13 '25 '20 '22 A11 34 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@'4 Crown Copyright and Database Rights'17 2013 Figure A 1 K A ' Key Destinations A10 Type Northstowe ") ' Education A14(T) Waterbeach ' Employment ") ' Retail SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ' Transport Proposed Cambridge South East Site '23 Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site '13 '2 Average Travel to Work J14 '3 Distance by Walking '16 (2.4km) A130 9

") A428 (T) ") A130 3 J13 22 Cambourne '25 '20 ' Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE '4 '17 ' A603 '14 J12 '18

A11 34 A11 98 '19 '1 ") M11 Cambridge South East '24 21 ' Average Cambridge Walk Catchments J11 of Proposed Development Sites A130 7 A130 1 A10 1:100,000

A603 A11 (T) Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 L A ' ' Walk Catchment Distance 1km 3km A11 98 4km 2.4km (average)

Existing Site Proposed Development Site Key Destinations ' Education ' Employment ' Retail A428 (T) ' Transport

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ") Cambourne ") Bourn Airfield

Walking Catchment of Cambourne Existng Development Site

1:50,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 N A '

A14(T)

J13 A130 3 '25 '20 '22 '4 Walk Catchment Distance 17 ' 1km 15 ' 3km '5 4km 2.4km (average) A603 A603 Proposed Cambridge SE Site 14 CAMBRIDGE ' Key Destinations ' Education J12 18 ' ' Employment ' Retail ' Transport A11 34 '19 '1 ") Cambridge South East

M11 '24 '21 A130 9

J11

A130 1 A10 A130 7

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE Walking Catchment of Cambridge SE Proposed Development Site

1:50,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 O A ' A14(T) Walk Catchment Distance 1km 3km 4km

2.4km (average) Proposed Development Site Key Destinations

A11 98 ' Education ' Employment SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ' Retail ' Transport

") A428 (T) Bourn Airfield

Walking Catchment of Bourn Airfield Proposed Development Site

1:50,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 M A Walk Catchment Distance 1km 3km 4km

2.4km (average) Proposed Development Site Key Destinations ' Education ' Employment ' Retail ' Transport Northstowe SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE ")

A14(T)

Walking Catchment of Northstowe Proposed Development Site

1:50,000

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 1 P A A10 Walk Catchment Distance 1km 3km 4km

2.4km (average) Proposed Development Site Key Destinations ' Education ' Employment ' Retail ' Transport SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE Waterbeach ") EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE

'23

Walking Catchment of Waterbeach Proposed Development Site A130 9

'13 A14(T) 1:50,000 '2 CAMBRIDGE Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database'3 Rights 2013 Figure A 1 Q A ' A (ii) Accession Mapping (Public Transport) and Core Accessibility Indicators

Employment Centres: 100+ jobs Northstowe )" by PT/walk within 20mins 0 - 2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield

CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134

A1198 )" No. of Employment Centres (100+jobs) National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East

A1309 1:90,000

J11 A1301 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 A A Employment Centres:100+ jobs Northstowe )" by PT/walk within 40mins 0-2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential A10 Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

A428(T) )" A1303 )" J13 A1303 Cambourne Bourn Airfield

CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134

A1198 )" No. of Employment Centres (100+jobs) National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East

A1309 1:90,000 J11 A1301 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 B A Employment Centres: 500+jobs Northstowe )" by PT/walk within 20mins A14(T) 0 - 2.5 Waterbeach )" 2.5 - 5 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield

CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" No. of Employment Centres (500+jobs) National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 C A Employment Centres:500+ jobs Northstowe )" by PT/Walk within 40mins 0 - 2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach )" 2.5 - 5 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential A10 Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield

CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134

A1198 )" No. of Employment Centres (500+jobs) National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East

A1309 1:90,000 J11 A1301 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 D A Northstowe Further Education Centres )" by cycle within 30mins A14(T) <2.5 Waterbeach )" 2.5 - 5 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" No. of FE Centres by Cycling National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East

A1309 1:90,000

J11 A1301 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 E A Northstowe Further Education Centres )" by PT/Walk within 30mins A14(T) <2.5 Waterbeach )" 2.5 - 5 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites A10 Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1198 A1134 )" FE Centres by PT within 30 mins M11 Cambridge South East National Core Accessibility Indicators A1309 1:90,000 J11 A1301 A1307 A10 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 F A Further Education Centres Northstowe by PT/Walk within 60mins )" <2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10

A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" FE Centres by PT within 60 mins National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 G A Number of Primary Schools Northstowe by PT/Walk within 15mins )" 0-2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" No. of Primary Schools (15mins by PT) National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 H A Number of Food Stores Northstowe )" by cycle within 15mins A14(T) 0 - 2.5 Waterbeach )" 2.5 - 5 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" No. of Food Stores within 15 mins cycle National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307

Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 I A Number of Food Stores Northstowe by PT/walk within 15 mins )" 0 - 2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" No. of Food Stores by PT within 15 mins National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 J A Number of Food Stores Northstowe by PT/Walk within 30mins )" 0 - 2.5 A14(T) Waterbeach 2.5 - 5 )" 5 - 7.5 7.5 - 10 A10 Proposed Cambridge South East Site Other Proposed Development Sites Existing Residential Development Site

J14 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

A1309

)" A428(T) )" A1303 J13 Cambourne A1303 Bourn Airfield CAMBRIDGE

A603 A603

J12

A1134 A1198 )" No. of Food Stores by PT within 30 mins National Core Accessibility Indicators M11 Cambridge South East A1301 1:90,000

J11 A1307 Contains Ordnance Survey Data@ Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2013 Figure A 2 K A

A (iii) Analysis of CRSM 29013 Transport Modelling Projections for Fringe Sites and Rural Sites (Cambridgeshire County Council)

(re-issued on 26 September 2013, as per following version) DRAFT

Analysis of CSRM 2031 Projections for Fringe Sites and Rural Settlements

To: Gerry Corrance, Bryan G Hall From: Tim Gent, WSP Bob Tuckwell, CCC Date: 18 March 2013 cc: Mike Salter, CCC James Lindsay, Atkins Paula Cuthbertson, WSP Project: Fringe Site Analysis Ref: 50400770

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Note 1.1.1 This note summarises analysis which has been carried out using existing CSRM results to compare trip-making in Cambridge Fringe sites and Rural Settlements. The scope of the work is as described in the document ‘CSRM Fringe Sites Scope of Work - for CCC.pdf’ provided to CCC on 31 January 2013. 1.1.2 This work has been commissioned by CCC on behalf of Bryan G Hall. However, this initial note has been produced for review by CCC and may be revised before being issued to Bryan G Hall. 1.2 Aim of Project 1.2.1 The aim stated for this work in the scope is:

 To investigate CSRM forecasts of future trip-making in Cambridgeshire for a variety of sites on the edge of Cambridge and in the surrounding countryside;

 To contrast the trip-making activities at these site, and report any evidence of differences in travel behaviour. 1.3 Structure of Note 1.3.1 Section 2 of the note outlines the sectors used for the analysis and the scenarios which have been analysed. Section 3 contains the results of the analysis with some commentary. Section 4 briefly summarises our conclusions having undertaken this work. 1.4 Caveats 1.4.1 It should be noted that this work has simply taken EXISTING CSRM tests and analysed results to compare Fringe and Rural sites. The tests used were not designed specifically with this purpose in mind. That may mean that important elements of the Fringe and Rural Settlement areas, such as site layout, development mix and mitigation measures, have not been addressed in those runs. This may alter results in later tests, and also means care must be taken in applying any results reported here to individual development proposals. It is important to note that all results presented are aggregate across a series of areas, and do not relate to individual sites. The transport characteristics of individual development proposals would be subject to more detailed transport assessment work before firm conclusions can be drawn. 1.4.2 This commentary and conclusions in this note refer only to the CSRM results, and other evidence directly available, and do not imply any form of opinion or advice in the use of the results or any other matter. As CSRM is revised for later specific tests, certain parts of the results may inevitably change.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 1 | 10

DRAFT

2 Geography and Scenarios

2.1 Geographic Scope and Sectors 2.1.1 This work has included analysis of trip-making in the Cambridge Sub-Region, comprising the four districts of Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. However, the results presented are only for selected areas: the ‘edge’ area of Cambridge (the ‘Fringe’) and Rural Settlements in South Cambridgeshire. Figure 2.1 shows a map showing these sectors. Note that:

 The Fringe includes the strategic development sites in North-West Cambridge, Orchard Park, East Cambridge and South Cambridge. Some existing development outside the centre of Cambridge have also been included.

 The area covered by the Rural Settlements includes all of Cambourne, Northstowe, Longstanton, and also Cottenham, Papworth Everard and Elsworth. This wider area has been used to provide more stability in the results. In the CSRM tests analysed, the areas included have roughly comparable travel behaviour. 2.1.2 For reference, and ‘Outer Fringe’ has also been included. This area covers Shelford, Teversham, Histon, Impington and Waterbeach. See Figure 2.1 below. 2.2 CSRM Scenarios Analysed 2.2.1 The scenarios analysed are as outlined in the project scope: Cambridge TIF Study Cambridge Science Park Title of Run used TIF_A14DS CSP_DS in this note Client and Owner CCC CCC Date undertaken 2009 2012 Years modelled 2011-2031 2011-2026 Sub-regional Employment and housing to NTEM5.4. Updated to NTEM6.2, with A14 dependent Development Housing including all strategic sites developments removed Assumptions from previous Core Strategy. With A14 upgrade, based on the Cambridge Science Park (CSP) Station A14 Upgrade? scheme design as at 2009 (later run without any A14 upgrade. cancelled). With enhanced modelling of Cambridge Other Transport Without TIF PT investment, but with Science Park station, and additional PT Interventions Cambridge Science Park (CSP) Station. links to the station. Northstowe developed only to 1,500, and Major rural Full Northstowe development of 8,150 Cambourne additional development developments plus 2,000 additional dwellings (post- halved. More dispersed development in included 2006) at Cambourne. South Cambridgeshire was included. By 2021 4,500 dwellings in the Major Cambridge Southern Fringe, 7,520 in Cambridge NW Cambridge development increased, Fringe East and 5,000 in NW Cambridge. Cambridge East development reduced developments Some additional in 2021-2031 to site significantly, Southern Fringe maintained. capacities.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 2 | 10

DRAFT

Figure 2.1 - Sectors used for analysis of outputs

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 3 | 10

DRAFT

3 Summary of Results

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This section presents the results of the analysis carried out, all of which derives from existing runs of CSRM. The mode share of trips is presented initially, which is expected to be a major focus of attention. However, it is important that the mode share is viewed in context. Scrutiny of the wider range of model outputs provide insights into the reasons behind the mode share, and will aid interpretation. 3.1.2 It is important to note that all results presented are aggregate across a series of areas, and do not relate to individual sites. 3.2 Mode Share of Trips Table 3.1 - Mode Share of Trips by Origin (2031)

All Day Trips AM (7am-10am) Origins Scenario Origin Car PT Active Total Car PT Active Total CSP_DS Fringe 43% 5% 52% 100% 33% 7% 60% 100% Outer Fringe 71% 4% 25% 100% 61% 7% 31% 100% Rural Settlement 71% 6% 23% 100% 66% 10% 25% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 45% 5% 50% 100% 36% 7% 57% 100% Outer Fringe 72% 4% 24% 100% 61% 7% 32% 100% Rural Settlement 71% 5% 24% 100% 66% 8% 26% 100%

Table 3.2 - Mode Share of Trips by Destination (2031) All Day Trips AM (7am-10am) Origins Scenario Destination Car PT Active Total Car PT Active Total CSP_DS Fringe 44% 5% 51% 100% 38% 5% 57% 100% Outer Fringe 73% 4% 23% 100% 67% 6% 27% 100% Rural Settlement 70% 6% 24% 100% 63% 8% 30% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 45% 5% 49% 100% 40% 5% 54% 100% Outer Fringe 73% 4% 23% 100% 69% 6% 25% 100% Rural Settlement 71% 5% 25% 100% 63% 6% 30% 100%

3.2.1 The tables above demonstrate a key result of this study: the CSRM scenario runs show that the proportion of trips made by car in the Fringe sector is considerably lower than for the Rural Settlements. The difference is typically just below 30% of all trips, which applies to both scenarios tested. The difference is also similar for AM trips and the total trips across the day. 3.2.2 However, it is noticeable that the ‘Outer Fringe’ area (which includes Waterbeach, Shelford , Histon and Girton) has a much higher car mode share, in some cases exceeding that in the Rural Settlements. This indicates that, in the existing model runs, the advantage of being in the ‘Fringe’ area can decline very quickly away from the City. However, there is, of course no guarantee that this will persist for specific new development proposals as this will depend on factors such as development mix, accompanying transport provision and so on.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 4 | 10

DRAFT

3.3 Travel Purpose Table 3.3 - Travel Purpose for AM (7am-10am) Origin Trips (2031) Scenario Origin Work Education Other Total CSP_DS Fringe 32% 41% 26% 100% Outer Fringe 37% 27% 36% 100% Rural Settlement 41% 28% 31% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 34% 39% 27% 100% Outer Fringe 37% 26% 37% 100% Rural Settlement 42% 26% 32% 100%

3.3.1 The table shows that trips originating in the Fringe sites are more likely to be Education trips, the Outer Fringes have a higher proportion of Discretionary (‘Other’) trips, andthat the Rural Settlements have a larger proportion of work trips. This is logical when considering the population of each area: the Fringe has the highest proportion of students, the Outer Fringe has a high proportion of retired and the rural settlements have the highest working population. 3.4 Time of Day Table 3.4 - Time of Trip Origin by Sector (2031) Scenario Orig2 7am-10am 10am-4pm 4pm-7pm Total CSP_DS Fringe 28% 47% 25% 100% Outer Fringe 24% 49% 27% 100% Rural Settlement 30% 46% 25% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 28% 47% 25% 100% Outer Fringe 24% 49% 27% 100% Rural Settlement 29% 47% 24% 100% 3.4.1 This table shows that the proportion of trips being made in the AM peak varies between areas, with the Outer Fringe having the lowest proportion. This appears logical given the mix of trip purposes already seen: discretionary trips are more likely to take place in the interpeak or early evening. 3.5 Trip Distance and Speed Table 3.5 – Average Trip Distance by Origin and Mode (km) (2031) Scenario Origin Car PT Active All Modes CSP_DS Fringe 18 18 2 10 Outer Fringe 20 20 3 16 Rural Settlement 22 21 2 18 TIF_A14DS Fringe 19 20 2 11 Outer Fringe 21 22 3 16 Rural Settlement 22 23 2 17 Table 3.6 – Average Speed of Journeys by Origin and Mode (km/hr) (2031) Scenario Origin Car PT Active All Modes CSP_DS Fringe 35 22 7 22 Outer Fringe 37 23 7 30 Rural Settlement 41 25 8 35 TIF_A14DS Fringe 36 23 7 23 Outer Fringe 39 25 7 32 Rural Settlement 42 26 8 36

3.5.1 The tables show the average distance and speed of journeys originating in each area (all day). This shows that car trips from the Fringe area are both shorter and slower than those from the Rural Settlements.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 5 | 10

DRAFT

Car trips from the Fringe area are 6km/hr slower on average than from the Rural Settlements. However, the speed reduction for Public Transport trips is only 3km/hr, which will make Public Transport relatively more attractive in this area. 3.6 Proportion of Trips to Cambridge Table 3.7 - Proportion of AM Trips which are to Cambridge (2031) Work Trips All Trips

Not Not Origin Mode Cambridge Cambridge Total Cambridge Cambridge Total Fringe Car 53% 47% 100% 46% 54% 100% PT 47% 53% 100% 50% 50% 100%

Active 88% 12% 100% 93% 7% 100% Outer Fringe Car 42% 58% 100% 32% 68% 100% PT 44% 56% 100% 38% 62% 100%

CSP_DS Active 48% 52% 100% 48% 52% 100% Rural Settlement Car 30% 70% 100% 19% 81% 100% PT 44% 56% 100% 23% 77% 100% Active 3% 97% 100% 3% 97% 100% Fringe Car 52% 48% 100% 45% 55% 100% PT 47% 53% 100% 49% 51% 100% Active 87% 13% 100% 93% 7% 100% Outer Fringe Car 37% 63% 100% 31% 69% 100% PT 40% 60% 100% 38% 62% 100% Active 52% 48% 100% 52% 48% 100% TIF_A14DS Rural Settlement Car 27% 73% 100% 19% 81% 100% PT 40% 60% 100% 24% 76% 100% Active 4% 96% 100% 3% 97% 100%

3.6.1 This table shows the proportion of trips which have Cambridge (including the Fringe and Central area) as a destination. Car Trips originating in the Fringe consistently are the most likely to terminate in Cambridge (~53% of Work Trips and ~46% of all trips), whilst the proportion is lower for the Outer Fringe and lowest still for the Rural Settlements. 3.6.2 This demonstrates that people living in the outer lying areas, including workers, are less likely to make car trips to Cambridge. 3.6.3 This may have important implications when considering the NET impact of rural developments on traffic around Cambridge – whilst a higher proportion of the trips are by car, a smaller proportion will impact on Cambridge itself. 3.6.4 Conversely, this also implies that residents of those areas are less likely to supply the Cambridge job-market.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 6 | 10

DRAFT

3.7 Development Levels in Cambridgeshire Table 3.8 – Growth in Land Use from 2006-2031 in CSRM Scenarios Scenario Origin Households Population Jobs Central 8,258 7,234 1,085 Fringe 21,250 45,703 24,529 Outer Fringe 9,638 19,976 4,561 CSP_DS Rural Settlement 7,753 17,350 4,447 Rural 5,473 6,196 4,960 Hunts+E Cambs 22,374 28,876 13,061 Total 74,746 125,336 52,643 Central 10,572 9,643 6,655 Fringe 30,968 62,987 33,082 Outer Fringe 10,841 20,855 7,917 TIF_A14DS Rural Settlement 16,538 34,844 10,912 Rural 6,286 6,512 9,454 Hunts+E Cambs 25,835 33,120 25,586 Total 101,041 167,961 93,607

3.7.1 The table shows the development assumptions input to CSRM for the two scenarios being considered in this report, including all areas of the Cambridge Sub Region (see map in ). The totals indicate the difference between the scenarios: the TIF_A14DS runs have assumed a higher level of development, as envisaged in 2008 pre-recession. The assumed growth in households, population and jobs is all lower in the (later) Cambridge Science Park (CSP_DS) test. This is also linked to the cancellation of the A14 widening scheme at the time. 3.7.2 In particular, the amount of development in the Rural Settlements is much lower, with only ~7,800 additional households and ~4,500 additional jobs, compared with ~16,500 and ~11,000 assumed in the TIF_A14DS run. 3.7.3 It is also worth noting that the Fringe area is projected to receive the largest proportion of the Jobs growth, which will increase the attraction of the area for work trips, and as a residential area for workers. 3.8 Car Ownership Table 3.9 – Growth in Car Ownership from 2006-2031 in CSRM Scenarios Scenario Origin No Car Part Car Full Car Total CSP_DS Fringe 22% 27% 51% 100% Outer Fringe 7% 15% 78% 100% Rural Settlement 5% 13% 82% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 23% 24% 52% 100% Outer Fringe 8% 14% 79% 100% Rural Settlement 5% 10% 85% 100%

3.8.1 The table shows the proportion of households in each area with no car, ‘part car’ ownership (i.e. 1 car but 2 or more adults) and full car ownership (at least 1 car per adult). All areas have 50%+ of households with ‘full car’ ownership. However, the Fringe area is considerably lower in car ownership than either the Outer Fringe or Rural Settlements. The Outer Fringe has only slightly lower car ownership than the rural settlements.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 7 | 10

DRAFT

3.9 Population Profile and Ratios Table 3.10 – Profile of Population in each Area (2031) %age %age %age %age non- %age Scenario Area Employed Students Retired employed Children CSP_DS Fringe 49% 9% 13% 9% 20% 100% Outer Fringe 48% 2% 20% 8% 21% 100% Rural Settlement 52% 1% 15% 9% 22% 100% TIF_A14DS Fringe 49% 8% 14% 9% 20% 100% Outer Fringe 48% 2% 20% 8% 21% 100% Rural Settlement 53% 1% 14% 9% 22% 100%

Table 3.11 – Adults per Household and Jobs per Employed Resident (2031) Jobs per Employed Scenario Area Adults/HHld Resident CSP_DS Fringe 1.78 1.36 Outer Fringe 1.79 0.97 Rural Settlement 1.81 0.65 TIF_A14DS Fringe 1.72 1.31 Outer Fringe 1.75 1.06 Rural Settlement 1.73 0.65

3.9.1 The top table shows the profile of the population in each area, split between the employed, students, retired people, non-employed and children. The outer areas have a higher proportion of employed people. In the Fringe, this appears to be due to the higher number of students, whilst in the Outer Fringe, the proportion of retired people is much higher (20%), and this reduces the employed proportion. This table appears to logically fit alongside the results in section 3.3 above.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 8 | 10

DRAFT

4 Conclusions

4.1 Comparison with Census 4.1.1 There has been some opportunity during this work to compare the travel patterns with the 2001 Census. The 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work data has been released but requires further analysis to make a comparison of this type. 4.1.2 The difference in car mode share between the Fringe and Rural Settlements shown in section 3.2 is in line with the 2001 Census proportions, though in the Census the difference in car mode share is even greater, due to a higher car share in the Rural Settlements. This applies for both origin and destination work trips. 4.1.3 The pattern in the proportion of work trips which are to Cambridge (Section 3.6) is also very similar between CSRM and the 2001 Census. 4.2 Conclusions 4.2.1 The analysis of CSRM results for the Fringe area and Rural Settlements gives very consistent results, which appear sensible and in line with evidence from Census data. However, it should be noted that these results relate to aggregate areas, and not to specific development sites, and are based only on existing model runs. Site specific studies would include the impact of development mix, transport mitigations and site layout which may mean that results differ from those seen in aggregate here. 4.2.2 The key results are that:

 The proportion of trips made by car in the Fringe area is approximately 30% less than for Rural Settlements;

 Car trips originating in the Fringe area and shorter, and are very much more likely to terminate in Cambridge itself. This latter point may mean that they have proportionally more impact on roads in and around the City;

 Car Ownership is considerably lower in the Fringe area than the Rural Settlements;

 Most of the effects considered above are NOT apparent in the ‘Outer Fringe’, which has very similar behaviour to the Rural Settlements. This suggests that the ‘Fringe effect’ may diminish quickly when moving away from Cambridge. 4.3 Further Investigation 4.3.1 As has been mentioned above, further site specific investigations would be necessary to confirm that the results from these existing model runs will be borne out for specific sites, for which more detailed assumptions would be tested. 4.3.2 In the absence of site specific studies, there are some further measures which can be taken to help confirm these results:

 As the 2011 Census data becomes available in a revised form, there may be merit in undertaking further work to check for similar patterns in that dataset.

 The work to date has necessarily focused on very broad areas of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. The inclusion of the ‘Outer Fringe’ demonstrates that the benefits of the fringe are likely to diminish rapidly. Moreover, the Fringe studied includes some mature areas of Cambridge, which may be dissimilar from new developments. More fine-tuning of the reporting areas – coupled with review of the Census data – would address this point. 4.3.3 Finally, the work reported here has not included analysis of highway speeds, congestion or junction delays. A separate piece of work is proposed to be carried out by Atkins to address this.

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 9 | 10

DRAFT

Version Control

Version Date By Reviewed Authorised Notes by (TN only)

1.0 12 Feb 2013 TJG PJC Initial Draft of note to go to CCC

1.1 14 Feb 2013 TJG CCC TJG DRAFT released to CCC for comment

1.2 15 Mar 2013 TJG CCC TJG Altered following comments from CCC

1.3 18 Mar 2013 TJG TJG For circulation to Bryan G Hall, as Draft

Project Note: CSRM Fringe Analysis

18/3/2013 10 | 10

A (iv) Assessment of alternative sites travel distances (by road) and\ emission levels

Evaluation of Road Distances and Emission levels for comparative sites

Distance Evaluation (miles and kms) based on journey length proportions in outer fringe/rural locations versus Cambridge urban fringe/primary urban area

Cambridge City Centre Cambridge Rail Station Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge Science Park

Free flow dist, Urban dist., Free flow dist., Free flow dist, Free flow dist, Total dist., km Total dist., km Urban dist, km Total dist., km Urban dist, km Total dist., km Urban dist, km km km km km km

Cambourne** 17.9 11.0 6.9 17.3 11.0 6.2 23.0 18.6 4.5 18.9 18.1 0.8 Northstowe 17.0 13.1 3.8 16.3 13.1 3.2 20.3 15.8 4.5 14.2 13.4 0.8 Bourne Airfield 16.5 9.6 6.9 15.8 9.6 6.2 21.6 17.1 4.5 17.4 16.6 0.8 Waterbeach 10.2 5.8 6.1 10.4 5.8 4.6 11.5 6.1 5.3 6.2 5.4 0.8 SE Cambs North 6.2 0.5 5.8 4.5 0.5 4.0 3.4 0.5 2.9 11.4 10.4 1.0 SE Cambs South 5.1 0.5 4.6 3.5 0.5 3.0 1.3 0.5 0.8 9.3 8.3 9.3

* Miles were converted into kilometres assuming that 1 mile = 1.6 kms * The distances were approximately measured using Google Maps * The SE Cambridge North distances were measured from a central point within the northern development area on the masterplan (can be seen in the appendix of Google Maps route images) * The SE Cambridge South distances were measured from a point on Wort's Causeway within the southern development area (can be seen in the appendix of Google Maps route images)

** For Cambourne West allocation add on an additional 0.5 miles or 0.8 kms to the overall trip distances Emission Summary per Trip, g Cambridge City Centre NOx(TRL) NOx PM25 PM10 CO2 HC Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. Cambourne 1.652 1.365 3.017 2.822 2.520 5.342 0.196 0.151 0.347 0.297 0.243 0.540 1505.796 1313.400 2819.196 0.378 0.521 0.900 Northstowe 1.963 0.762 2.725 3.353 1.407 4.760 0.233 0.084 0.317 0.353 0.136 0.489 1789.496 733.060 2522.557 0.449 0.291 0.740 Bourne Airfield 1.436 1.365 2.802 2.454 2.520 4.974 0.170 0.151 0.321 0.258 0.243 0.502 1309.388 1313.400 2622.787 0.329 0.521 0.850 Waterbeach 0.862 1.206 2.068 1.472 2.227 3.699 0.102 0.133 0.236 0.155 0.215 0.370 785.633 1160.679 1946.311 0.197 0.461 0.658 SE Cambridge North 0.072 1.143 1.215 0.123 2.110 2.233 0.009 0.126 0.135 0.013 0.204 0.217 65.469 1099.590 1165.060 0.016 0.437 0.453 SE Cambridge South 0.072 2.110 2.182 0.123 1.700 1.822 0.009 0.102 0.110 0.013 0.164 0.177 65.469 885.781 951.251 0.016 0.352 0.368

Cambridge Railway Station NOx(TRL) NOx PM25 PM10 CO2 HC

Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. Cambourne 1.652 1.238 2.890 2.822 2.286 5.107 0.196 0.137 0.333 0.297 0.221 0.518 1505.796 1191.223 2697.019 0.378 0.473 0.851 Northstowe 1.963 0.635 2.598 3.353 1.172 4.525 0.233 0.070 0.303 0.353 0.113 0.466 1789.496 610.884 2400.380 0.449 0.243 0.692 Bourne Airfield 1.436 1.238 2.675 2.454 2.286 4.739 0.170 0.137 0.307 0.258 0.221 0.479 1309.388 1191.223 2500.611 0.329 0.473 0.802 Waterbeach 0.862 0.921 1.783 1.472 1.700 3.172 0.102 0.102 0.204 0.155 0.164 0.319 785.633 885.781 1671.414 0.197 0.352 0.549 SE Cambridge North 0.072 0.794 0.866 0.123 1.465 1.588 0.009 0.088 0.096 0.013 0.141 0.154 65.469 763.604 829.074 0.016 0.303 0.320 SE Cambridge South 0.072 0.603 0.675 0.123 1.114 1.236 0.009 0.067 0.075 0.013 0.108 0.120 65.469 580.339 645.809 0.016 0.230 0.247

Addenbrooke's Hospital NOx(TRL) NOx PM25 PM10 CO2 HC

Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. Cambourne 2.777 0.889 3.666 4.744 1.641 6.385 0.329 0.098 0.428 0.499 0.158 0.658 2531.483 855.237 3386.720 0.636 0.340 0.975 Northstowe 2.370 0.889 3.259 4.048 1.641 5.689 0.281 0.098 0.379 0.426 0.158 0.585 2160.490 855.237 3015.727 0.543 0.340 0.882 Bourne Airfield 2.562 0.889 3.451 4.376 1.641 6.017 0.304 0.098 0.402 0.461 0.158 0.619 2335.075 855.237 3190.312 0.586 0.340 0.926 Waterbeach 0.910 1.048 1.957 1.554 1.934 3.488 0.108 0.116 0.224 0.164 0.187 0.350 829.279 1007.958 1837.237 0.208 0.400 0.608 SE Cambridge North 0.072 0.571 0.643 0.123 1.055 1.178 0.009 0.063 0.072 0.013 0.102 0.115 65.469 549.795 615.265 0.016 0.218 0.235 SE Cambridge South 0.072 0.159 0.231 0.123 0.293 0.416 0.009 0.018 0.026 0.013 0.028 0.041 65.469 152.721 218.190 0.016 0.061 0.077

Cambridge Science Park NOx(TRL) NOx PM25 PM10 CO2 HC

Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Free-flow Urban Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. Total dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. dist. Cambourne 2.705 0.159 2.864 4.621 0.293 4.914 0.321 0.018 0.338 0.487 0.028 0.515 2466.013 152.721 2618.734 0.619 0.061 0.680 Northstowe 2.011 0.159 2.170 3.435 0.293 3.728 0.239 0.018 0.256 0.362 0.028 0.390 1833.143 152.721 1985.864 0.460 0.061 0.521 Bourne Airfield 2.490 0.159 2.648 4.253 0.293 4.546 0.295 0.018 0.313 0.448 0.028 0.476 2269.605 152.721 2422.326 0.570 0.061 0.631 Waterbeach 0.814 0.159 0.973 1.390 0.293 1.683 0.097 0.018 0.114 0.146 0.028 0.175 741.986 152.721 894.707 0.186 0.061 0.247 SE Cambridge North 1.556 0.190 1.747 2.658 0.352 3.010 0.185 0.021 0.206 0.280 0.034 0.314 1418.503 183.265 1601.768 0.356 0.073 0.429 SE Cambridge South 1.245 1.841 3.086 2.126 3.399 5.526 0.148 0.203 0.351 0.224 0.328 0.552 1134.803 1771.562 2906.365 0.285 0.703 0.988 A (v) Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Draft Transport Strategy

Table 5 Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire - Evaluation of Compliance

Key

means that the plan/site fails relating to the transport sustainability criteria means that the plan/site is neutral relating to the selected transport sustainability criteria means that the plan/site positively demonstrates a 'sustainable transport first' approach

Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

Stated Key Proposals/Priorities (taken verbatim from the County Council website) West West South Cambridge South East Northstowe Cambourne Waterbeach Cambourne Bourn Airfield Cambridge City Cambridgeshire

General principles This Allocations do not represents a optimise active key location travel/ public which can transport trips. readily There is a domino Preferred connect into Dependent Dependent effect caused by locations Dependent on More journeys to be made by existing on single on single limiting growth in increase car Busway gives single corridor bus, train, bike and on foot so infrastructure corridor link corridor link 1 Cambridge use and advantage but link with that traffic levels aren’t and integrate with with leading to overall only one corridor increases car increased. seamlessly increases car increases car unsustainable distances travel with the travel travel patterns of travelled surrounding development in S. transport Cambs which are network for mainly car walk/cycle and dependent PT modes Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

Sustainable Extra capacity for traffic to No capitalisation modes will Corridors Corridors Corridors travel round the outskirts of on urban fringe Preferred benefit from serving this Corridors serving this serving this site Cambridge, so that road locations and locations capacity. Base site are serving this site site are 2 are reaching space into and across the city pedestrian/cycle increase car traffic flows reaching are reaching reaching saturation can be prioritised for buses, connectivity use are the lowest saturation saturation levels saturation levels cyclists and pedestrians. available compared to levels levels other corridors Approach relies on filtering Park and ride travellers from Park and Ability to walk has only Park and Ride Additional Park and Ride Park and ride their cars, rather Ride still or cycle easily limited impact at Milton but options on the fringes of Park and ride has only than locating encourages to the on this still impact on 3 Cambridge, to minimise the strategy relies limited impact development car use and Babraham Rd corridor and A14 junction amount of unnecessary traffic on Longstanton on this where sustainable carbon park and ride still relies on through car travelling through the city. corridor modes will be the emissions facility car use to use ‘first choice’ for access the whole journey Preferred Car is more Car is more Car is more Ensuring public transport, locations will Active travel convenient - convenient - convenient - cycling and walking are the Allocations not Busway not enable modes all bus all bus all bus best ways of getting around optimising active services only 4 walking and strongly journeys will journeys will journeys will and across the area, since travel/public give partial cycling for promoted and require a require a require a they will be quicker and more transport trips advantage, the 'whole deliverable change in change in change in convenient than by car. journey' Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Reducing car traffic by using Predict and Reduced car The ability The guided The ability to The ability to Available road a variety of techniques, which provide use can be for these busway provides reduce car use reduce car 5 space already may mean limiting the strategy still ‘designed in’ locations to some element of is use is limited down available road space for cars. evident from the reduce car choice but it fundamentally fundamentally Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

outset, and use is limited due to is compromised compromised greater fundamentally ‘point to point’ through the through the permeability compromised nature location and its locations and and time through their relationship its advantage locations and with a single relationship given to the corridor route with a single sustainable relationship into Cambridge corridor route modes with a single into corridor route Cambridge into Cambridge Bus services in existence Locating Busway is an Partial but are development on 'attractive' Bus services Enabling people to use public commitment constrained Bus services the urban fringe alternative but in existence transport for at least some of to public Existing public by the single in existence would have still uses city but are their journey into Cambridge transport transport (bus) route into but are 6 enable public centre road and constrained or surrounding towns, by usage but choice is Cambridge constrained by transport walking involves by the single creating a frequent, quality still extensive and a the single route and cycling to be changing to route into service across major routes. encourages continued into Cambridge used for their reach other Cambridge car use erosion of whole journey destinations service provision Ability to Travel plans part Travel plans Travel plans Travel plans Developing local transport Innovative Innovative enhance of the rationale - part of the part of the part of the solutions with communities, approaches still approaches accessibility 7 rationale - not not exploited to rationale - not rationale - not which link to public transport be to be still to be for exploited to full potential exploited to exploited to along key routes. developed developed surrounding full potential full potential full potential areas Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

What we plan to do in Cambridge Some impact Spatial Walking and Walking and Walking and Encourage more people to through cycle Allocations not strategy Sustainable cycling trips cycling trips cycling trips walk, cycle and use public linkages but 8 optimising these encourages transport first are limited to are limited to are limited to transport for journeys into, distances still modes longer trip approach external external external out of and within the city. beyond average lengths locations locations locations cycle journey Only Key location Cambridge station selected for access to is a sustainable locations will Promote bus routes that both location - but rail benefit and Busway feeds connect key economic hubs Cambridge is unlikely to be all access to Lack of direct into city centre Lack of direct Lack of direct 9 and link to the new train City centre used for ‘short S Cambs bus services but still requires bus services bus services station at Cambridge Science and South hop’ trips employment interchange Park transport hub. Cambs between CSP and allocations employment city centre will be via locations city centre Limited Opportunity to Limited Has relatively impact due develop car impact - also Limited Persuade more people to car more potential 10 Stated objective to spatial sharing within evidenced by Limited impact impact as per share. but limited development location and cultural and Cambourne critical mass distribution neighbourhood social barriers Strategy Sustainable Busway gives Sustainable Failure to allocate Sustainable Prioritise pedestrian, cycle conflicts with modes some potential modes urban fringe ‘Sustainable modes cannot and bus trips across the city prioritising cannot be for linked cannot be 11 locations transport first’ be dully and make these methods of sustainable optimised walking/cycling dully weakens this approach optimised due transport more convenient travel trips to given location trips and some optimised due strategy to location than using a car. and within and further time advantage to location – Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

Cambridge evidenced until the bus as per through services Cambourne Census and integrated with constraints Cambourne the existing road evaluation network report Some scope for Will help to mode shift but Strategy will Failure to allocate reduce car Will increase relies on the Will increase Will increase increase Maintain general traffic at urban fringe sites mode split total volumes success of the total volumes total volumes traffic flow 12 current levels (of volume by will weaken ability within the CSE and increase busway and the and increase and increase volumes and reducing car mode split) to meet absolute location and dependence origin/destination dependence dependence car as first trip targets surrounding on car profile of on car on car choice mode area Northstowe residents What we plan to do in South Cambridgeshire Locations Cambridge city dependent Ensure that main transport development on single Multiple Single Single routes into Cambridge have strategy has Single corridor Single corridor 13 corridor/ corridor corridor corridor good, high-quality public forced longer option option major public accessibility option option transport. distance transport commuting investment Neighbourhoods Bus Link villages with public in urban accessibility 14 transport along busy Cambridge/urban not N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A transport routes. fringe benefit from optimised high through Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

frequency/multiple current bus services with settlement good penetration strategy into communities. Existing spatial strategy support active travel but Busway by reducing the provides some proportion of benefits but only housing and Active travel along one employment modes not Adopting Stand alone Stand alone Stand alone Enable more people to walk corridor. within Cambridge supported ‘sustainable settlement' settlement' with settlement' 15 and cycle and ensure cycle Distances to and its urban through transport first’ with external external with external networks are more joined up. Cambridge still fringe forces more existing approach connectivity connectivity connectivity prohibitive based development in strategy on average locations where cycling trip high walking and length in the city cycling levels cannot be generated Some scope Some scope Cambridge City Car sharing Some scope but but limited to but limited to spatial approach Transport Limited as an option limited to the the the will lead to more strategy does scope given Encourage more people to from some effectiveness of 16 dependence on not need to cultural and effectiveness effectiveness car share. of the travel plans and the car, rather rely on car social of travel plans of travel plans strategic journey time than active travel sharing evidence and journey and journey sites barriers modes time barriers time barriers Local Plan Approach Site Specific Locations

Potential to examine but no Innovative Ability to strong Past approaches develop PTP- evidence that a Innovative evidence Support more locally led not based local, Potentially approaches not shows transport solutions in remote optimised solutions and Relies on guided innovative same risks as 17 optimised through commercially areas where conventional bus through the benefit for busway package will with the Local Plan in viable bus services are not viable. Local Plan in Cherry work - reliance Cambourne its current form services took its current Hinton/Queens on the A10 time to evolve form Edith corridor and new rail station/services

A (vi) Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against the Cambridgeshire County Council Local Transport Plan

Table A6 Cambridgeshire LTP - Evaluation of Compliance

Key

means that the plan/site fails relating to the LTP overall objective means that the plan/site is neutral relating to the LTP overall objective means that the plan/site positively demonstrates compliance with the LTP objective

Local Plan Site Specific Approach Locations

Stated LTP3 objectives

Examples of Relevant (taken verbatim from

Measures / LTP3 the County Council contributions / hire City

LTP) West South Bourn Airfield Cambridge Cambridge South East Northstowe Cambourne Cambourne Waterbeach Cambridges There is a There is a presence of presence of bus service to bus service to A A key locations key locations development development The Guided Enabling people to like railway Bus service like railway - Provide a transport strategy that strategy that Stimulates Busway is thrive, achieve their station and provided station and network that is efficient focuses focuses strong beneficial, but 1 potential and Cambridge along with Cambridge and effective housing away housing away community restricted to improve their quality City Centre, nearby railway City Centre, - Provide good from from cohesion and only one of life but is not station. but is not accessibility to services Cambridge Cambridge linkage with corridor. frequent frequent and for businesses will encourage will encourage existing areas enough to enough to - Provide easily more time more time such as satisfy the satisfy the accessible information travelling and travelling and Cherry Hinton population population on transport and travel will not create will not create and Queen No Social options an 'access for an 'access for Edith's No information information on inclusion via Supporting and all' all' No adequate on possible possible travel new rail 2 protecting environment environment information on travel options options to station but vulnerable people. travel options. to enlighten enlighten the depends on the public public accessibility Local Plan Site Specific Approach Locations

Stated LTP3 objectives

Examples of Relevant (taken verbatim from

Measures / LTP3 the County Council contributions / hire City

LTP) West South Bourn Airfield Cambridge Cambridge South East Northstowe Cambourne Cambourne Waterbeach Cambridges Failure to optimise use - Discourage use of of urban fringe cars where alternatives sites will exist and encourage impact on the Initiative to use of sustainable proportion of develop means of transport such the growth The current sustainable The site has The site has as walking, cycling and population growth transport no secondary no secondary public transport able to use strategy laces infrastructure school which school which - Facilitate active walking and major housing i.e. footpaths Urban fringe generates generates travel through cycling as development and Absence of location with extra trips. No extra trips. No improvements in modes of first in locations cycleways is secondary strong adequate adequate footpaths and choice. which are still present, but school which Managing and permeability initiative to initiative to cycleways Capitalising car dependent applicable will increase delivering the and improve and improve and - Influence planning on and which do only for local the need for growth and connectivity promote promote 3 decisions to co-locate Cambridge's not stimulate travel. No travel. development of that will walking and walking and housing with jobs and regional a 'sustainable planned car Absence of sustainable optimise the cycling. cycling. services to reduce the centre first travel first' clubs/car local communities. use of Absence of Absence of need to travel would also culture. They sharing cycleways. No sustainable car car - Influence the design reduce the also do not promotion. efficient transport management management of new developments to distances optimise the Office facilities footpath links. modes interventions interventions promote road safety needed to use of travel will be present such as car such as car and encourage travel by travel to work. plans in an to attract clubs and car clubs and car foot and bicycle Additional innovative businesses sharing. sharing. - Implement travel pressure on form and provide plans and other smarter South employment choices measures such Cambridgeshir opportunities. as car clubs and car e and led to a sharing 'new settlement' approach Local Plan Site Specific Approach Locations

Stated LTP3 objectives

Examples of Relevant (taken verbatim from

Measures / LTP3 the County Council contributions / hire City

LTP) West South Bourn Airfield Cambridge Cambridge South East Northstowe Cambourne Cambourne Waterbeach Cambridges Location is Office and sustainable to high support technology The current Cambridge as research and spatial a regional development strategy employment firms will be focuses centre and concentrated Capitalisation Small amount Promoting improved - Improve growth to the further in a business on Cambridge of local skill levels and accessibility to west, north supports the Absence of hub linked to Absence of as a regional employment economic prosperity education and jobs west and vitality of the variety of the town variety of centre will opportunities. across the county, - Implement north of city centre. employers to centre. A employers to 4 mean that Bad helping people into measures to manage Cambridge Also supports offer job further offer job residents have accessibility to jobs and demand where traffic rather than to employment opportunities employment opportunities to travel short secondary encouraging congestion hinders the south growth in in the area. area, located in the area. distances to schools not in enterprise. economic prosperity which is South Cambs adjacent to work Waterbeach. closer to the by reducing the park and major travel ride, will in employment distances to particular allocations key business provide a and wider range of science/tech other job parks opportunities Failure to The strategy Presence of capitalise on places Reduced busway will Location Distance from capacity of the development travel assist in encounters - Actions to address Cambridge urban fringe to at locations distances and modal split, Options to use same Meeting the traffic growth, and reliance accommodate where walking reduced car but overall bus and rail challenges as challenges of particularly car use on car will growth means and cycling mode share distances but active Cambourne climate change and environment. lead to high 5 carbon levels access to will prevent travel modes as a 'stand enhancing the - Encourage levels of will increase Cambridge is significantly cycling and again will be alone' natural environment. behavioural change carbon and through severely reduce walking as limited due to settlement away from single other transport limited and transport alternatives distance there is high occupancy car use transport behaviour and will increase emissions for external reliance on emissions increased car trip distances from this site trips from the the car. use significantly location A (vii) Detailed Assessment of Local Plans and Alternative Sites against NPPF Criteria

Table A7

Key

Rating Explanation -3 -3 means that the site significantly fails the selected transport sustainability criteria -2 -2 means that the site moderately fails the selected transport sustainability criteria -1 -1 means that the site fails on a limited number of aspects relating to the transport sustainability criteria 0 0 means that the site neither negatively or positively meets the selected transport sustainability criteria +1 +1 means that the site positively demonstrates transport sustainability on a limited number of aspects +2 +2 means that the site positively demonstrates transport sustainability based on a moderate number of aspects +3 +3 means that the site positively demonstrates exemplar transport features

Key National Policy and Best Practice Sources to support specific criteria NPPF National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) BSTND Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments (DfT, 2008) CBTST Campaign for Better Transport Sustainability Guidance (CBT, 2012) GPGTP Good Practice Guide for Travel Plans (DfT, 2009) RTPG Residential Travel Planning Guidance (DfT, 2007) DTDS Door to Door Strategy (DfT, 2013) EQA Equality Act 2010 TCPAETW TCPA Eco Towns Worksheets

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Transport Considerations against Source of Indicator Ref NPPF criteria Bourn (West) Airfield (control) South East Cambridge Northstowe Cambourne Cambourne Waterbeach

TOTAL SCORES 92 -77 -55 -89 -60 -93 ST GROUP Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation ST1 Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport sustainability? NPPF, para 182 3 -2 -1 -3 -3 -3 ST2 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own merits? NPPF, para 182 3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3

i i i l l Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Transport Considerations against SourceC ofa Indicatorm b r B d o g u e r n S C N o a o A u m r t b t r h o h f C u s E a W r t e a m a n o s b t e w d t o e e u r ( r b W n e e e a s c t ( h ) c o n t r o ) Ref NPPF criteria Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other locations including those in 3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -3 ST3 other neighbouring authorities? NPPF, para 182 ST4 Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure delivery? NPPF, para 182 and para 32 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 ST5 Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure delivery? NPPF, para 182 and para 32 2 1 2 1 1 -3 (b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

3 -3 1 -3 3 -3 Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in the Cambridge sub-region, ST6 does this site optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of travel? NPPF, para 182 and para 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local Plan reflected sustainable 3 -3 2 -3 3 -3 ST7 transport modes as a priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) NPPF, para 182 and para 17 ST8 Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and route connection analysis? NPPF, para 182 and para 17 3 3 -1 3 -3 3 ST9 Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly assessed? NPPF, para 182 and para 41 3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Has innovation in sustainable transport been demonstrated in the evidence 3 -1 -1 -3 1 -3 ST10 base? NPPF, para 182 and para 17 (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the Planning Strategy Can deliverability of this site can be achieved without major transport 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 ST11 investment? NPPF, para 182 and para 32 Are there affordable, front loading measures in place which are capable of 2 0 -3 0 -3 0 ST12 releasing this site for early occupations to meet demand for housing? NPPF, para 182 ST13 Does this site support wider strategic transport objectives for the sub-region? NPPF, para 182 3 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple local authorities to be 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 ST14 fulfilled (cross boundary collaboration)? NPPF, para 182 Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic and job creation benefits as 1 0 3 -1 0 -1 ST15 part of its transport approach? NPPR, para 182 and para 37 (d) Compliance with current National Planning Policy Have transport and access considerations have been given due weight in the 2 -1 3 -2 3 -2 ST16 evidence presented for this site? NPPF, para 182 ST17 Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been demonstrated for this site? NPPF, para 182 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Has compliance with existing extant best practice demonstrated for this site (TP 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 ST18 guidance, Circulars, BSTND? NPPF, para 182 Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in terms of health and wellbeing NPPF, para 182 and para 17, 3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 ST19 through advocacy of active travel modes? 38 ST20 Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made sustainable' in transport terms? NPPF, para 182 and para 17 3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3

SCORES – NPPF SOUNDNESS 48 -37 -27 -44 -30 -48

i i i l l Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Transport Considerations against SourceC ofa Indicatorm b r B d o g u e r n S C N o a o A u m r t b t r h o h f C u s E a W r t e a m a n o s b t e w d t o e e u r ( r b W n e e e a s c t ( h ) c o n t r o ) Ref NPPF criteria TT GROUP Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other key guidance Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key employment, education and 2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT1 other service locations? NPPF, paras 34. 37 TT2 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable transport infrastructure? NPPF, para2 32, 34 ,35 3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT3 Will the site connect well into existing public transport infrastructure? NPPF, paras 32, 34 ,35 3 -3 -1 -3 -3 -3 What is the ability of the site to connect to key employment locations by non-car 2 -2 -2 -2 3 -2 TT4 modes? NPPF, para 37 TT5 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to transport (trips caused by site)? NPPF, para 30 2 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 TT6 Can trip banking be delivered through the strategy for this site? NPPF, paras 32, 35 2 2 3 1 3 1 TT7 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality Act definition)? NPPF, paras 32, 35 1 3 3 3 3 3 Can the development of this site achieve greater accessibility for the wider 2 -3 3 -3 3 -3 TT8 community? NPPF, paras 32, 35 TT9 Will the development lead to increased pressure on specific corridors? NPPF, para 32 35 ,41 1 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 TT10 Will the development lead to significant residual transport impact? NPPF, para 32 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT11 Will the development create significant demand for movement/travel distances? NPPF, paras 34, 37 ,38 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Can the development site accommodate a 'sustainable transport first' approach 2 1 2 0 3 0 TT12 in its design approach? NPPF, paras 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and skills without increasing the 2 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 TT13 need to travel/travel distances? NPPF, para 182, para 37 TT14 Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it behaves self-sufficiently? NPPF, para 182, para 37 2 3 1 2 3 2 TT15 Does the design code promote sustainable modes and manage down car use? NPPF, para 182, para 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 TT16 Can the parking standards be used to manage trip demand on this site? NPPF, para 182, para 39 1 3 3 2 3 2 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle movements on a specific 1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT17 corridor or disperse pressure? NPPF, para 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement towards existing urban 1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT18 centres? NPPF, para 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' rationale that is integrated and 0 0 0 0 0 0 TT19 understandable to the end user? DTDS, section 6 Has the development demonstrated that interchange facilities (or all scales) can 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 TT20 be designed around expected customer needs from the outset? DTDS section 6

What impact will the development have on the transport network during 1 0 0 0 -3 0 TT21 construction phasing and has this been managed down? BSTND, page 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable BSTND, page 4, TCPAETW 1 0 0 0 3 0 TT22 practices to be adopted during construction (consolidation, on site processing..) section 7.1 SCORES – NPPF TRANSPORT 33 -25 -15 -30 -12 -30

i i i l l Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Transport Considerations against SourceC ofa Indicatorm b r B d o g u e r n S C N o a o A u m r t b t r h o h f C u s E a W r t e a m a n o s b t e w d t o e e u r ( r b W n e e e a s c t ( h ) c o n t r o ) Ref NPPF criteria LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport viability without major 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT1 subsidy? BSTIND. pp13-15 Has the development demonstrated methods to maintain sustainable transport GPGTP,RTPGDTDS p43 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT2 mode share beyond the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Has the site's transport viability taken into consideration longer term behaviour 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT3 change in the surrounding area? TCPAETW, section 7.2 Has the development demonstrated that business and job creation can be 1 1 3 1 3 1 LT4 sustained on the site? NPPF. Paras 34, 37 Has the development demonstrated that education and service provision can 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT5 be sustained on site? BSTIND, NPPF para 38 TCPAETW, section 7.2, 2 2 2 2 -3 2 LT6 Has the site put in place a robust travel plan strategy and delivery mechanism? GPGTP, RTPG Has the site demonstrated its capability to proactively support neighbourhood EQA, DTDS p41, NPPF para 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT7 planning processes? 38 What is the scope for the site to integrate within existing community and BSTND, EQA, DTDS p41, 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT8 neighbourhood organisational structures? NPPF para 38 What reliance does the site place on delivery of transport infrastructure or other GPGTP, RTPG , NPPF para 2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 LT9 interventions beyond the control of the developer/s? 32 What measures can be put in place to ensure that the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile match job needs within a reasonable commuting NPPF para 34, 35, 37, 38 2 0 0 0 0 0 LT10 distance? 50, 159, SCORES - LONG TERM TRANSPORT SUSTANABILITY/LEGACY 11 -15 -13 -15 -18 -15

OVERALL TOTALS 92 -77 -55 -89 -60 -93

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambridge South East location Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation Yes, thorough appraisal undertaken as part of the Transport Representation (Appendices A-F) and key comparative evaluation using 3 Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para objective data sources including Census 2011, Accession and approved ST1 sustainability? 182 CCC modelling outputs Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para 3 ST2 merits? 182 Yes, taking into account the pre-existing connections and site context Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para 3 Yes. Taking into account all the other major alternative sites in Cambridge ST3 authorities? 182 and South Cambridgeshire NPPF, para Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para 0 ST4 delivery? 32 Yes, but scalable and does not rely on major infrastructure investment NPPF, para Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para 2 Yes, but the strategy can be extremely flexible due to the level of travel ST5 delivery? 32 choices available to support this location (b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para 3 optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para Yes, fully with the ability to retrofit further measures to benefit the ST6 travel? 17 surrounding SE quadrant of Cambridge Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para 3 Site not included in the Local Plan in its whole form but can easily promote ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 a 'sustainable transport first' approach NPPF, para Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para 3 ST8 route connection analysis? 17 Yes, as per ST1 above NPPF, para Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para 3 ST9 assessed? 41 Yes NPPF, para Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para 3 ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 Yes, through the sustainable transport and travel planning approach Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambridge South East location Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the

Planning Strategy NPPF, para Can deliverability of this site can be achieved 182 and para 2 ST11 without major transport investment? 32 Yes as evidenced Are there affordable, front loading measures in place which are capable of releasing this site for NPPF, para 2 ST12 early occupations to meet demand for housing? 182 Yes - through the travel planning strategy Does this site support wider strategic transport NPPF, para 3 ST13 objectives for the sub-region? 182 Yes - both the DTS and the LTP Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple local authorities to be fulfilled (cross boundary NPPF, para 2 Yes - aligned to the DTS as the joint transport vehicle for prioritising ST14 collaboration)? 182 sustainable transport Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic NPPR, para and job creation benefits as part of its transport 182 and para 1 ST15 approach? 37 Proposes both housing and employment options (d) Compliance with current National Planning

Policy Have transport and access considerations have been given due weight in the evidence presented for NPPF, para 2 The site can demonstrate these attributes but at present they have not ST16 this site? 182 been recognised fully (only in respect of GB1-GB4 in the CC LP) Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been NPPF, para 2 ST17 demonstrated for this site? 182 Compliance demonstrated through the rigorous testing (ST1) Has compliance with existing extant best practice demonstrated for this site (TP guidance, Circulars, NPPF, para 2 ST18 BSTND? 182 as above Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in NPPF, para terms of health and wellbeing through advocacy of 182 and para 3 ST19 active travel modes? 17, 38 As above and through the sustainable transport strategy NPPF, para Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made 182 and para 3 Yes through the strong levels of sustainable transport mode share and the ST20 sustainable' in transport terms? 17 level of walking and cycling connectivity

48 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR SOUNDNESS INDICATORS

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambridge South East location Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other

TT GROUP key guidance Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras 2 TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 Yes, as demonstrated in the3 evidence base and the accessibility analysis Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 3 TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Yes as above Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras 3 TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Yes as above What is the ability of the site to connect to key 2 TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Direct bus, and cycling connections Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to 2 Yes significantly due to is priority to the city centre and other southern TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Cambridgeshire employment locations Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras 2 TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Yes - an integral part of the sustainable transport strategy Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras 1 TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Yes Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras 2 TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Yes including area wide travel planning Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 1 No, due to 70% modal share by sustainable modes and walking/cycling as TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 'first choice' modes of travel Will the development lead to significant residual 0 TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Residential traffic impact small in comparison Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras 2 TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 No, Can the development site accommodate a 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras 2 TT12 approach? 35, 38 Yes as demonstrated in the connections and concept plan Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para 2 TT13 distances? 182, para 37 Yes ,including the city centre and the South Cambridge areas Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para 2 Yes - education retail, social/community, green spaces, housing and TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 employment woven together in a very flexible manner Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para 2 TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Yes - a clear sustainable transport ethos underpins the concept plan Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 1 TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Yes Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambridge South East location Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Does the development concentrate car/vehicle movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para 1 TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Disperse pressure through the layout and points of access Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para 1 TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 Sustainable transport first approach counterbalances How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section 0 TT19 the end user? 6 Opportunity to be developed Has the development demonstrated that interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section 0 TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 Opportunity to be developed What impact will the development have on the transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page 1 TT21 has this been managed down? 4 Scope to manage down using construction travel planning What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 1 during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 Scope to manage down using construction travel planning 33 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- 2 LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 Yes, including engagement with Stagecoach Has the development demonstrated methods to GPGTP,RTPG maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 0 LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Yes- though the sustainable transport rationale Has the site's transport viability taken into consideration longer term behaviour change in the TCPAETW, 2 LT3 surrounding area? section 7.2 Yes, including retrofit travel planning on Cherry Hinton Has the development demonstrated that business NPPF. Paras 1 Yes - through a flexible strategy and building on the Peterhouse Tech Park LT4 and job creation can be sustained on the site? 34, 37 presence Has the development demonstrated that education BSTIND, 0 LT5 and service provision can be sustained on site? NPPF para 38 Opportunity to be developed TCPAETW, Has the site put in place a robust travel plan section 7.2, 2 LT6 strategy and delivery mechanism? GPGTP, Strategy in place Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambridge South East location Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments RTPG Has the site demonstrated its capability to EQA, DTDS proactively support neighbourhood planning p41, NPPF 0 LT7 processes? para 38 Opportunity to be developed What is the scope for the site to integrate within BSTND, EQA, existing community and neighbourhood DTDS p41, 0 LT8 organisational structures? NPPF para 38 Strong potential to link in What reliance does the site place on delivery of GPGTP, transport infrastructure or other interventions RTPG , NPPF 2 LT9 beyond the control of the developer/s? para 32 Can be developer delivered What measures can be put in place to ensure that the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile NPPF para 34, 2 match job needs within a reasonable commuting 35, 37, 38 50, LT10 distance? 159, Travel plan strategy can address this 11 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR LEGACY INDICATORS

92 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Bourne Airfield Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation No. Transport sustainability of the site is described but is not in a form of an -2 Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para assessment. ST1 sustainability? 182 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para -3 No, Transport viability is included but not in a form of an assessment. ST2 merits? 182 Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other -3 No comparison undertaken with urban fringe sites locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para ST3 authorities? 182 NPPF, para -3 Yes. Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST4 delivery? 32 NPPF, para 1 Only partially Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST5 delivery? 32 (b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in No. An option to integrate high quality bus service from St Neots to Cambridge is -3 the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para mentioned, but by far not optimum solution. optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para ST6 travel? 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para -3 No - on basis of relationship to Cambourne Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 NPPF, para 3 Yes, access by old A428 for cars and public transport. Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para ST8 route connection analysis? 17 NPPF, para -3 No. Description is in place, but not assessment. Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para ST9 assessed? 41 NPPF, para -1 Limited approach to innovation in travel planning terms Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the Planning Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Bourne Airfield Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Strategy NPPF, para No. Re-routing of bus services and possible introduction of high quality link between -3 Can deliverability of this site can be achieved 182 and para St Neots and Cambridge will require substantial investment. ST11 without major transport investment? 32 Are there affordable, front loading measures in 0 No information. place which are capable of releasing this site for NPPF, para ST12 early occupations to meet demand for housing? 182 Sustainable transport modes are mentioned, but in a laconic manner. Lack of -1 Does this site support wider strategic transport NPPF, para evidence, ST13 objectives for the sub-region? 182 Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple -3 No. local authorities to be fulfilled (cross boundary NPPF, para ST14 collaboration)? 182 Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic NPPR, para No, although reference is made to the integration of land use and transport at the 0 and job creation benefits as part of its transport 182 and para site. Benefits are described but not demonstrated. ST15 approach? 37 (d) Compliance with current National Planning

Policy Have transport and access considerations have -1 The issue has been raised in documents, but lacks detail and emphasis. been given due weight in the evidence presented for NPPF, para ST16 this site? 182 Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been NPPF, para -3 No. ST17 demonstrated for this site? 182 Has compliance with existing extant best practice -3 No. demonstrated for this site (TP guidance, Circulars, NPPF, para ST18 BSTND? 182 Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in NPPF, para -3 No. terms of health and wellbeing through advocacy of 182 and para ST19 active travel modes? 17, 38 NPPF, para -3 No, the sustainability of the site has been described but not demonstrated. Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made 182 and para ST20 sustainable' in transport terms? 17

-37 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR SOUNDNESS INDICATORS

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Bourne Airfield Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other TT GROUP key guidance No. Trips will be generated for education (only primary school in place) and -2 Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras employment (Cambridge) purposes. TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 be integrated. TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras be integrated. TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 What is the ability of the site to connect to key -2 Poor, with only bus service being the most realistic one. TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to -3 No. Trips will be generated by education and employment demand. TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras 2 Possibly, with integration of the Cambourne site. TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras 3 Yes, should be. TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras -3 No. TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 -3 Yes, on A428, A1303 and M11. TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 Will the development lead to significant residual -3 Yes, could affect A428, A1303 and M11 TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras -3 Yes, for employment and educational purposes mainly. TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 Can the development site accommodate a 1 Yes, in the long term after delivery of transport infrastructure. 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras TT12 approach? 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and -3 No. Cambridge will be the main attractor. skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para TT13 distances? 182, para 37 A mix of land uses is proposed including residential, employment, shops, community Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para 3 services and facilities including health and primary school education. Open space, TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 sports and leisure facilities are also proposed. It is unlikely the site will operate in a Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Bourne Airfield Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments totally self-sufficient manner.

Sustainable modes are promoted, but the effect could be negated by the location of 0 Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para the site - car will remain the most convenient way to travel. TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 3 Most probably yes. TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle -3 Yes, pressure will most probably occur on A428, A1303 and M11. movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para -3 Yes TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' 0 No information. rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section TT19 the end user? 6 Has the development demonstrated that -3 No demonstration/reference of interchange facilities. interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 What impact will the development have on the A negative effect possible on the A14 corridor. The effect will be identifiable after 0 transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page construction has begun. TT21 has this been managed down? 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 0 Is yet to be identified. during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 -25 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- -3 No. Major investment in public transport infrastructure is required. LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 Has the development demonstrated methods to GPGTP,RTPG -3 No. maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Bourne Airfield Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Has the site's transport viability taken into -3 No. consideration longer term behaviour change in the TCPAETW, LT3 surrounding area? section 7.2 Yes - offices, shops, schools. Although Cambridge will still remain the main 1 Has the development demonstrated that business NPPF. Paras attractor. LT4 and job creation can be sustained on the site? 34, 37 Has the development demonstrated that education BSTIND, -3 No. Primary school will be available, but no prospects for further education facilities. LT5 and service provision can be sustained on site? NPPF para 38 TCPAETW, section 7.2, 2 Yes. Has the site put in place a robust travel plan GPGTP, LT6 strategy and delivery mechanism? RTPG Has the site demonstrated its capability to EQA, DTDS -3 No. proactively support neighbourhood planning p41, NPPF LT7 processes? para 38 What is the scope for the site to integrate within BSTND, EQA, 0 existing community and neighbourhood DTDS p41, LT8 organisational structures? NPPF para 38 What reliance does the site place on delivery of GPGTP, Development on the site depends entirely on the delivery of major transport -3 transport infrastructure or other interventions RTPG , NPPF infrastructure. LT9 beyond the control of the developer/s? para 32 What measures can be put in place to ensure that Price of housing would influence socio-economic profile of residents. Provision of the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile NPPF para 34, 0 reliable public transport services. match job needs within a reasonable commuting 35, 37, 38 50, LT10 distance? 159, -15 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR LEGACY INDICATORS

-77 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Northstowe Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation There is an assessment of transport sustainability, but not objective. The site is -1 presented as highly sustainable in terms of transport, which is true for internal Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para journeys - CGB is the only service leading to Cambridge town centre, not sufficient. ST1 sustainability? 182 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para -3 No viability assessment. ST2 merits? 182 Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other -3 No comparison undertaken with urban fringe sites locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para ST3 authorities? 182 NPPF, para -3 Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para Yes. ST4 delivery? 32 NPPF, para 2 Only partially Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST5 delivery? 32

(b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in 1 The site is will be connected by the CGB. Site has also presented initiative of the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para promoting/developing cycling and walking for internal journeys. However, no optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para intentions of developing a cycleway key external locations (Cambridge City). ST6 travel? 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para 2 Yes, reference is made to the site's long-term sustainable credentials following the Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para delivery of major transport infrastructure. ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 NPPF, para -1 Not fully. The information on links to the site is not exhaustive, connecting bus Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para services (excluding CGB) were not identified. ST8 route connection analysis? 17 NPPF, para -3 Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para No. There is no clear assessment of sustainable transport modes. ST9 assessed? 41 NPPF, para -1 Limited approach to innovation in travel planning terms Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Northstowe Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the Planning Strategy NPPF, para -3 No. The site cannot be delivered without major investment in highways, bus and Can deliverability of this site can be achieved 182 and para pedestrian & cycle infrastructure. ST11 without major transport investment? 32 Are there affordable, front loading measures in -3 place which are capable of releasing this site for NPPF, para None were identified. ST12 early occupations to meet demand for housing? 182 No, transport sustainability goals are difficult to reach mainly due to the location of -2 Does this site support wider strategic transport NPPF, para the site (although CGB is near). ST13 objectives for the sub-region? 182 Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple -3 local authorities to be fulfilled (cross boundary NPPF, para No. ST14 collaboration)? 182 Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic NPPR, para 3 and job creation benefits as part of its transport 182 and para Yes. Transport and land use integration is demonstrated. ST15 approach? 37 (d) Compliance with current National Planning Policy Have transport and access considerations have 3 been given due weight in the evidence presented for NPPF, para Yes. The importance of accessibility of the site is highlighted. ST16 this site? 182 Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been NPPF, para -3 No. ST17 demonstrated for this site? 182 Has compliance with existing extant best practice -3 demonstrated for this site (TP guidance, Circulars, NPPF, para No. ST18 BSTND? 182 Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in NPPF, para -3 terms of health and wellbeing through advocacy of 182 and para No, the benefits have been explained but not demonstrated. ST19 active travel modes? 17, 38 NPPF, para -3 Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made 182 and para No, the sustainability of the site has been described but not demonstrated. ST20 sustainable' in transport terms? 17 -27 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR SOUNDNESS INDICATORS

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Northstowe Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other TT GROUP key guidance No. Although the creation of employment opportunities on the site is planned, -3 Cambridge will still remain a strong attractor, Primary school will be built on the site, Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras but further education will generate trips. TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 -3 No. Walking and cycling will be only a part of internal journeys TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras -1 No. CGB is the only nearby public service. TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 What is the ability of the site to connect to key -2 Poor with CGB being the only option. TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to -2 Most probably not, mainly due to the geographical location of the site. TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Yes, since the development relies on transport infrastructure that will influence travel 3 Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras patterns beyond the boundary of the development. TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras 3 Yes. TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Yes, through the delivery of major transport infrastructure that will benefit not only 3 Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras the site but also the wider community. TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Yes, on the A14, which connects the site with Cambridge City although the guided -2 Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 busway will offer some mitigation on the specific NW corridor from the city centre TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 Will the development lead to significant residual -3 Most likely. Residual impacts likely on the A10 and A14. TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Yes, a significant number of trips are expected between the site and Cambridge City -3 Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras Centre. TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 Can the development site accommodate a 2 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras Yes, in the long term. TT12 approach? 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and -2 Although the site aims to create local job opportunities, Cambridge will remain the skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para main attractor. TT13 distances? 182, para 37 Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para 1 A mix of land uses is proposed including residential, employment, shops, community TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 services and facilities including health and primary school education. Open space, Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Northstowe Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments sports and leisure facilities are also proposed. It is unlikely the site will operate in a totally self-sufficient manner.

Sustainable modes are promoted, but the effect could be negated by the location of 0 Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para the site - car will remain the most convenient way to travel. TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 3 Most probably yes. TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle -3 movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para Creates pressure on A14 corridor. TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para -3 Yes. TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' 0 rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section No information. TT19 the end user? 6 Has the development demonstrated that -3 interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section No demonstration/reference of interchange facilities. TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 What impact will the development have on the 0 A negative effect possible on the A14 corridor. The effect will be identifiable after transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page construction has begun. TT21 has this been managed down? 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 0 during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW Is yet to be identified. TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 -15 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- -3 No. Major investment in public transport infrastructure is required. LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 Has the development demonstrated methods to GPGTP,RTPG -3 maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 No. LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Northstowe Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Has the site's transport viability taken into -3 consideration longer term behaviour change in the TCPAETW, No. LT3 surrounding area? section 7.2 Yes - offices, shops, schools. Although Cambridge will still remain the main 3 Has the development demonstrated that business NPPF. Paras attractor. LT4 and job creation can be sustained on the site? 34, 37 Has the development demonstrated that education BSTIND, -3 No. Primary school will be available, but no prospects for further education facilities. LT5 and service provision can be sustained on site? NPPF para 38 TCPAETW, section 7.2, 2 Has the site put in place a robust travel plan GPGTP, Yes. LT6 strategy and delivery mechanism? RTPG Has the site demonstrated its capability to EQA, DTDS -3 proactively support neighbourhood planning p41, NPPF No. LT7 processes? para 38 What is the scope for the site to integrate within BSTND, EQA, 0 existing community and neighbourhood DTDS p41, LT8 organisational structures? NPPF para 38 What reliance does the site place on delivery of GPGTP, -3 Development on the site depends entirely on the delivery of major transport transport infrastructure or other interventions RTPG , NPPF infrastructure. LT9 beyond the control of the developer/s? para 32 What measures can be put in place to ensure that the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile NPPF para 34, 0 Price of housing would influence socio-economic profile of residents. Provision of match job needs within a reasonable commuting 35, 37, 38 50, reliable public transport services. LT10 distance? 159, -13 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR LEGACY INDICATORS

-55 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne West Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

-3 No transport sustainability assessment. Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para ST1 sustainability? 182 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para -3 No transport viability assessment. ST2 merits? 182 Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other -3 No comparison undertaken with urban fringe sites locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para ST3 authorities? 182 NPPF, para -3 Yes. Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST4 delivery? 32 NPPF, para 1 Only partially Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST5 delivery? 32

(b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in -3 No. Bus services are/will be present, but not sufficient to be called "optimum". the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para ST6 travel? 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para -3 No. Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 NPPF, para 3 Yes, access by old A428 for cars and public transport. Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para ST8 route connection analysis? 17 NPPF, para -3 No. Assessment is not included. Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para ST9 assessed? 41 NPPF, para -3 No. Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne West Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the Planning Strategy NPPF, para -3 No. Re-routing of bus services, cycleways, highways/road work needs to be done. Can deliverability of this site can be achieved 182 and para ST11 without major transport investment? 32 Are there affordable, front loading measures in 0 No information. place which are capable of releasing this site for NPPF, para ST12 early occupations to meet demand for housing? 182 Although sustainability is mentioned in the sites documents, there is little -3 Does this site support wider strategic transport NPPF, para evidence/detail to support the strategic objectives. ST13 objectives for the sub-region? 182 Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple -3 No. local authorities to be fulfilled (cross boundary NPPF, para ST14 collaboration)? 182 Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic NPPR, para No, although reference is made to the integration of land use and transport at the -1 and job creation benefits as part of its transport 182 and para site. Benefits are described but not demonstrated. ST15 approach? 37 (d) Compliance with current National Planning Policy Have transport and access considerations have -2 The issue has been raised in documents, but lacks detail and emphasis. been given due weight in the evidence presented for NPPF, para ST16 this site? 182 Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been NPPF, para -3 No. ST17 demonstrated for this site? 182 Has compliance with existing extant best practice -3 No. demonstrated for this site (TP guidance, Circulars, NPPF, para ST18 BSTND? 182 Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in NPPF, para -3 No. terms of health and wellbeing through advocacy of 182 and para ST19 active travel modes? 17, 38 NPPF, para -3 No. Sustainability aspects are discussed but not demonstrated. Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made 182 and para ST20 sustainable' in transport terms? 17 -44 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR SOUNDNESS INDICATORS

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne West Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other TT GROUP key guidance Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras -3 No. Trips will be generated for education and employment (Cambridge) purposes. TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 be integrated. TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras be integrated. TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Poor, with only bus service being the most realistic one. St Neots train station is -2 What is the ability of the site to connect to key another option for commuters. TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to -3 No. Trips will be generated by education and employment demand. TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Possibly, with integration of the other Cambourne villages and the Bourn Airfield 1 Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras site. TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras 3 Yes, should be. TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras -3 No. TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 -3 Yes, on A428, A1303 and M11. TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 Will the development lead to significant residual -3 Yes, could affect A428, A1303 and M11 TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras -3 Yes, for employment and educational purposes mainly. TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 Can the development site accommodate a 0 Possibly in the long term with introduction of sophisticated transport infrastructure. 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras TT12 approach? 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and -3 No. Cambridge will be the main attractor. skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para TT13 distances? 182, para 37 A mix of land uses is proposed including residential, employment, shops, community 2 services and facilities including health and primary school education. Open space, Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para sports and leisure facilities are also proposed. It is unlikely the site will operate in a TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 totally self-sufficient manner. Most of them are present in the other Cambourne Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne West Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments villages.

Sustainable modes are promoted, but the effect could be negated by the location of 0 Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para the site - car will remain the most convenient way to travel. TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 2 Most probably yes. TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle -3 Yes, pressure will most probably occur on A428, A1303 and M11. movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para -3 Yes TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' 0 No information. rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section TT19 the end user? 6 Has the development demonstrated that -3 No demonstration/reference of interchange facilities. interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 What impact will the development have on the A negative effect possible on the A14 corridor. The effect will be identifiable after 0 transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page construction has begun. TT21 has this been managed down? 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 0 Is yet to be identified. during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 -30 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- -3 No. Major investment in public transport infrastructure is required. LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 GPGTP,RTPG Has the development demonstrated methods to -3 No. maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne West Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Has the site's transport viability taken into -3 No. consideration longer term behaviour change in the TCPAETW, LT3 surrounding area? section 7.2 Yes - offices, shops, schools. Although Cambridge will still remain the main 1 Has the development demonstrated that business NPPF. Paras attractor. LT4 and job creation can be sustained on the site? 34, 37 Has the development demonstrated that education BSTIND, -3 No. Primary school will be available, but no prospects for further education facilities. LT5 and service provision can be sustained on site? NPPF para 38 TCPAETW, 2 Yes. Has the site put in place a robust travel plan section 7.2, LT6 strategy and delivery mechanism? GPGTP, RTPG EQA, DTDS Has the site demonstrated its capability to -3 No. proactively support neighbourhood planning p41, NPPF LT7 processes? para 38 What is the scope for the site to integrate within BSTND, EQA, 0 existing community and neighbourhood DTDS p41, LT8 organisational structures? NPPF para 38 What reliance does the site place on delivery of GPGTP, Development on the site depends entirely on the delivery of major transport -3 transport infrastructure or other interventions RTPG , NPPF infrastructure. LT9 beyond the control of the developer/s? para 32 What measures can be put in place to ensure that Price of housing would influence socio-economic profile of residents. Provision of the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile NPPF para 34, 0 reliable public transport services. match job needs within a reasonable commuting 35, 37, 38 50, LT10 distance? 159, -15 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR LEGACY INDICATORS

-89 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Waterbeach Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

-3 Commentary is provided on the transport strategy for the site which refers to Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para sustainability - but this commentary does not constitute an objective assessment. ST1 sustainability? 182 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para -3 No viability assessment is provided. ST2 merits? 182 Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other -2 No comparison undertaken with urban fringe sites locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para ST3 authorities? 182 NPPF, para -3 Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para Yes. ST4 delivery? 32 NPPF, para 1 Only partially Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST5 delivery? 32

(b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in 3 the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para Yes, but only in the long term following the delivery of major transport infrastructure optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para proposals. ST6 travel? 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para 3 Yes, reference is made to the site's long-term sustainable credentials following the Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para delivery of major transport infrastructure. ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 NPPF, para -3 No, not fully. Some limited description of potential site access and movement Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para connections is provided. ST8 route connection analysis? 17 NPPF, para -3 No. Again, a description of the sustainable modes of transport is provided but this Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para currently does not amount to an assessment. ST9 assessed? 41 NPPF, para 1 Yes, but only slightly. Reference is made to a package of Smarter Choices - but no Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para further detail is provided. ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Waterbeach Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments (c) Effectiveness and Deliverability of the Planning Strategy NPPF, para -3 No. The site cannot be delivered without major investment in highways, rail, bus and Can deliverability of this site can be achieved 182 and para pedestrian & cycle infrastructure. ST11 without major transport investment? 32 Are there affordable, front loading measures in -3 No. In any case, there are currently only 1,400 homes are planned to be delivered place which are capable of releasing this site for NPPF, para on this site by 2031. ST12 early occupations to meet demand for housing? 182 No, particularly in terms of the site's geographical location and the objective to make -3 Does this site support wider strategic transport NPPF, para best use of existing transport infrastructure wherever possible. ST13 objectives for the sub-region? 182 Does this site allow planning objectives for multiple -3 local authorities to be fulfilled (cross boundary NPPF, para No. ST14 collaboration)? 182 Has the site demonstrated deliverable economic NPPR, para 0 No, although reference is made to the integration of land use and transport at the and job creation benefits as part of its transport 182 and para site. Benefits are described but not demonstrated. ST15 approach? 37 (d) Compliance with current National Planning Policy Have transport and access considerations have 3 Yes, there is some commentary on transport and access requirements within the been given due weight in the evidence presented for NPPF, para various planning documents. ST16 this site? 182 Has compliance with NPPF 'transport tests' been NPPF, para -3 No. ST17 demonstrated for this site? 182 Has compliance with existing extant best practice -3 demonstrated for this site (TP guidance, Circulars, NPPF, para No. ST18 BSTND? 182 Has the site demonstrated it strategic benefits in NPPF, para -3 terms of health and wellbeing through advocacy of 182 and para No, the benefits have been explained but not demonstrated. ST19 active travel modes? 17, 38 NPPF, para -3 Has the site demonstrated it can be 'made 182 and para No, the sustainability of the site has been described but not demonstrated. ST20 sustainable' in transport terms? 17 -30 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR SOUNDNESS INDICATORS

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Waterbeach Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other TT GROUP key guidance No, planning documents recognise that there will be a strong trip attraction to -3 Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras Cambridge City Centre at peak times for employment opportunities. TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 be integrated. TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 No. New public transport services are required to support development on site. In -3 Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras addition, the existing railway station will need to be relocated. TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Yes, in the long term following delivery of major transport infrastructure required to 3 What is the ability of the site to connect to key support development of the site. TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to -3 No. TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Yes, since the development relies on transport infrastructure that will influence travel 3 Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras patterns beyond the boundary of the development. TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Yes - it should be. Accessibility for all should be provided for during the various 3 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras stages of design. TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Yes, through the delivery of major transport infrastructure that will benefit not only 3 Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras the site but also the wider community. TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Yes - on the A10 and A14 and on public transport service corridors between the site -3 Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 and Cambridge. TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 Will the development lead to significant residual -3 Most likely. Residual impacts likely on the A10 and A14. TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Yes, a significant number of trips are expected between the site and Cambridge City -3 Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras Centre. TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 Can the development site accommodate a 3 Yes, theoretically, but only in the longer term following the delivery of major 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras transport infrastructure. TT12 approach? 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and -3 skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para Not really. The biggest employers are in the City Centre. TT13 distances? 182, para 37 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Waterbeach Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments A mix of land uses is proposed including residential, employment, shops, community services and facilities including health and both primary and secondary school 3 education. Open space, sports and leisure facilities are also proposed. It is unlikely Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para the site will operate in a totally self-sufficient manner. TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 The Cambridge Design Guide for Streets and Pubic Realm shall be used as the 0 Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para design guide which would ensure promotion of sustainable transport modes. TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 3 Yes, they should be. TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle -3 movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para Yes. Vehicle movements will be concentrated on the A10 and A14. TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para -3 Yes. TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' 0 rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section Unknown at present. TT19 the end user? 6 Has the development demonstrated that -3 No, this has not been demonstrated, but reference has been made to a new interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section interchange within the site. TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 The construction phase will undoubtedly have a negative impact on key highway corridors around the site, including the A10, although this will be temporary. The -3 What impact will the development have on the detailed impacts will need to be assessed once a construction strategy has been transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page developed by Contractors. TT21 has this been managed down? 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 3 There is potential for sustainable construction practices to be employed although during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW details of the construction strategy have yet to be confirmed. TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 -12 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests No. The development requires major investment in transport infrastructure for which -3 Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- funding has not yet been confirmed. LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Waterbeach Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Has the development demonstrated methods to GPGTP,RTPG -3 maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 No. LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Has the site's transport viability taken into -3 consideration longer term behaviour change in the TCPAETW, No. LT3 surrounding area? section 7.2 Yes, a mix of land uses is proposed. In the early years of development a small number of residential units is proposed, e.g. only 1,400 homes are planned to be 3 delivered on this site by 2031. The early years of development are therefore unlikely Has the development demonstrated that business NPPF. Paras to fully sustain business and job creation. LT4 and job creation can be sustained on the site? 34, 37 No. They are unlikely to be sustained during the early years of development when -3 Has the development demonstrated that education BSTIND, numbers of residential units are low. LT5 and service provision can be sustained on site? NPPF para 38 TCPAETW, section 7.2, -3 Has the site put in place a robust travel plan GPGTP, No, but a Smarter Choices package is proposed. LT6 strategy and delivery mechanism? RTPG Has the site demonstrated its capability to EQA, DTDS -3 proactively support neighbourhood planning p41, NPPF No. LT7 processes? para 38 What is the scope for the site to integrate within BSTND, EQA, 0 existing community and neighbourhood DTDS p41, LT8 organisational structures? NPPF para 38 What reliance does the site place on delivery of GPGTP, -3 Development on the site depends entirely on the delivery of major transport transport infrastructure or other interventions RTPG , NPPF infrastructure. LT9 beyond the control of the developer/s? para 32 What measures can be put in place to ensure that the housing mix/tenure and socioeconomic profile NPPF para 34, 0 match job needs within a reasonable commuting 35, 37, 38 50, Price of housing would influence socio-economic profile of residents. LT10 distance? 159, -18 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR LEGACY INDICATORS

-60 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne (control) Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Soundness Testing - 20 point soundness test

ST GROUP (based on NPPF para 182) (a) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

-3 No transport sustainability assessment. Is the site objectively assessed in terms of transport NPPF, para ST1 sustainability? 182 Is the site transport viability assessed on its own NPPF, para -3 No transport viability assessment. ST2 merits? 182 Is the site assessed sequentially compared to other -3 No comparison. locations including those in other neighbouring NPPF, para ST3 authorities? 182 NPPF, para -3 Yes. Does the site rely on 'hard' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST4 delivery? 32 NPPF, para -3 Yes. Does the site rely on 'soft' transport infrastructure 182 and para ST5 delivery? 32

(b) Strategy Approach and Plan Preparation

Given the existing culture of sustainable transport in -3 No. Bus services are/will be present, but not sufficient to be called "optimum". the Cambridge sub-region, does this site NPPF, para optimise/maximise the use of sustainable modes of 182 and para ST6 travel? 17 Has the current prioritisation of this site in the Local NPPF, para -3 No. Plan reflected sustainable transport modes as a 182 and para ST7 priority? (either a 'whole' trips or part of linked trips) 17 NPPF, para 3 Yes, access by old A428 for cars and public transport. Has the site been evaluated fully in terms of site and 182 and para ST8 route connection analysis? 17 NPPF, para -3 No. Assessment is not included. Have all sustainable modes for this site been fairly 182 and para ST9 assessed? 41 NPPF, para -3 No - strong dependence on the car Has innovation in sustainable transport been 182 and para ST10 demonstrated in the evidence base? 17 Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne (control) Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne (control) Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments Key Transport Tests - built on NPPF and other TT GROUP key guidance Will the site will reduce the need to travel to key NPPF, paras -3 No. Trips will be generated for education and employment (Cambridge) purposes. TT1 employment, education and other service locations? 34. 37 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing sustainable NPPF, para2 be integrated. TT2 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 No. Significant additional transport infrastructure is required in to which the site will -3 Will the site connect well into existing public NPPF, paras be integrated. TT3 transport infrastructure? 32, 34 ,35 Poor, with only bus service being the most realistic one. St Neots train station is -2 What is the ability of the site to connect to key another option for commuters. TT4 employment locations by non-car modes? NPPF, para 37 Will the site reduce growth carbon levels due to -3 No. Trips will be generated by education and employment demand. TT5 transport (trips caused by the site)? NPPF, para 30 Possibly, with integration of the other Cambourne villages and the Bourn Airfield 1 Can trip banking (wider area modal change) be NPPF, paras site. TT6 delivered through the strategy for this site? 32, 35 Will the development be accessible to all (Equality NPPF, paras 3 Yes, should be. TT7 Act definition)? 32, 35 Can the development of this site achieve greater NPPF, paras -3 No. TT8 accessibility for the wider community? 32, 35 Will the development lead to increased pressure on NPPF, para 32 -3 Yes, on A428, A1303 and M11. TT9 specific corridors? 35 ,41 Will the development lead to significant residual -3 Yes, could affect A428, A1303 and M11 TT10 transport impact? NPPF, para 32 Will the development create significant demand for NPPF, paras -3 Yes, for employment and educational purposes mainly. TT11 movement/travel distances? 34, 37 ,38 Can the development site accommodate a 0 Possibly in the long term with introduction of sophisticated transport infrastructure. 'sustainable transport first' approach in its design NPPF, paras TT12 approach? 35, 38 Can the site offers easy access to labour pools and -3 No. Cambridge will be the main attractor. skills without increasing the need to travel/travel NPPF, para TT13 distances? 182, para 37 A mix of land uses is proposed including residential, employment, shops, community 2 services and facilities including health and primary school education. Open space, Is there a mix of land uses proposed on the site so it NPPF, para sports and leisure facilities are also proposed. It is unlikely the site will operate in a TT14 behaves in a self-sufficient manner? 182, para 37 totally self-sufficient manner. Most of them are present in the other Cambourne Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne (control) Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

Score Comments villages.

Sustainable modes are promoted, but the effect could be negated by the location of 0 Does the design code promote sustainable modes NPPF, para the site - car will remain the most convenient way to travel. TT15 and manage down car use? 182, para 39 Can the parking standards be used effectively to NPPF, para 2 Most probably yes. TT16 manage trip demand on this site? 182, para 39 Does the development concentrate car/vehicle -3 Yes, pressure will most probably occur on A428, A1303 and M11. movements on a specific corridor or disperse NPPF, para TT17 pressure? 182, para 41 Does the development encourage tidal movement NPPF, para -3 Yes TT18 towards existing urban centres? 182, para 41 How well does the site offer a ‘door to door' 0 No information. rationale that is integrated and understandable to DTDS, section TT19 the end user? 6 Has the development demonstrated that -3 No demonstration/reference of interchange facilities. interchange facilities (or all scales) can be designed DTDS section TT20 around expected customer needs from the outset? 6 What impact will the development have on the A negative effect possible on the A14 corridor. The effect will be identifiable after 0 transport network during construction phasing and BSTND, page construction has begun. TT21 has this been managed down? 4 What options are there for sustainable transport modes and sustainable practices to be adopted BSTND, page 0 Is yet to be identified. during construction (consolidation, on site 4, TCPAETW TT22 processing, contractors' travel plan etc)? section 7.1 -30 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE FOR NPPF/FT TRANSPORT INDICATORS

LT GROUP Long Term Transport Sustainability Tests Has the development demonstrated public transport BSTIND. pp13- -3 No. Major investment in public transport infrastructure is required. LT1 viability without major subsidy? 15 Has the development demonstrated methods to GPGTP,RTPG -3 No. maintain sustainable transport mode share beyond DTDS p43 LT2 the build-out period? 6.11-6.12, Indicator Indicator Type and Detail - Site Specific Source of Cambourne (control) Ref Transport Considerations against NPPF criteria Indicator

-93 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SCORE

A (viii) Assessment of existing housing developments and their approach to transport promotion

Key to RAG Rating

Promotes sustainable transport by providing information Review of Housing Developers' Travel Promotion Approach - Cambridge and South Cambridge Sample Sites (assessed as at August 2013) about local bus services, cycle routes and footpaths.

Neutral, there is no transport link information provided.

Aggressively, positively promotes car use by providing information about links to closest motorways. Gives no information about local sustainable transport.

Cambridgeshire Housing Developer Transport Promotion Evaluation

Location Developer Name of the Development Number of Houses Website Brochure Site Plan Key Comments http://www.bovishomes.co.uk/new-homes-at- The website and the brochure has no transport based Bovis The Green 90 Yes Yes cambourne/the-green/ information. The brochures give no information about sustainable http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+a Churchill Gardens 110 Yes Yes transport i.e. buses, cycling (cycling is only mentioned in a nglia/churchill+gardens/ leisure context). It is mentioned that the site is connected with A428 which leads to A14, M11, M15 and other routes. Cambourne http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+a Newton Grange 87 Yes Yes Also, the brochure mentions the nearby Cambridge, St. Taylor Wimpey nglia/newtongrange/ Neots and Royston trains stations that provide services to London Liverpool Street or King's Cross. Moreover, it is stated that Cambridge Airport is just 30 http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+a Dukes Park 51 Yes Yes minutes away and Stansted Airport can be reached in 50 nglia/dukespark/ minutes by rail (based on National Rail Enquiries data).

The brochure suggests that the site is well-connected by cycle routes. Guided bus and train station are mentioned http://homes.skanska.co.uk/Our-new- Skanska Seven Acres 77 Yes Yes as well, supported by a connectivity map. Car travel is homes/Seven-Acres/Seven-Acres-reservations/ visually presented as a last option in the brochure, with access to M11.

The developer emphasises the importance of cycling as http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/property- part of Cambridge's commitment to the environment and Berkeley Cambridge Riverside 159 developers/berkeley/developments/cambridge- Yes Yes states that the site is designed with the same principles in riverside/the-development mind. It is stated that the secure bike racks and direct access to the Common will ensure driving is unnecessary. Cambridge City The description of the development indicates that easily accessible cycle stores and footpaths in the site encourage Abode 197 http://www.abodecambridge.co.uk/ Yes Yes greener modes of transport. There is no car travel information. Countryside The transport link description in the site's website provides Properties extensive information about the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus, good cycle routes and footpaths. Travel by car is Novo 308 http://www.novocambridge.com/ Yes Yes mentioned as well. However, Abode promotes pay-as-you- go car club, Zipcar, which helps to reduce individual's expenditure and carbon footprint.

* Internet research indicated that there was no information regarding new housing developments in the areas of Northstowe (Longstanton), Waterbeach, Ely and Bourn Airfield. Appendix B: Deliverability Evidence containing the following documents:

B (i) Note on deliverability and programming of A14 improvements B (ii) Note on deliverability of Hills Road cycle and bus improvements

Cambridge South East

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Programme and Funding Risks - Note

16th September 2013

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

COMMERCIAL ESTATES GROUP

A14 CAMBRIDGE TO HUNTINGDON IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROGRAMME AND FUNDING RISKS – NOTE

Report by: Tom Murphy

Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers Suite E8, Joseph’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB

Ref: 12-167-003-02

Date: September 2013

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME 3

3.0 DELIVERY PROGRAMME 5

4.0 FUNDING STRATEGY 9

5.0 POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF A TOLL ROAD 11

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 12

APPENDICES Highways Agency Delivery Programme for Major Appendix BGH1 Highway Infrastructure

Appendix BGH2 A14 Delivery Programme prepared by Bryan G Hall

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Note sets out the current position of the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntington Improvement scheme. It also highlights the risks and uncertainty to the delivery programme and funding strategy.

1.2 The Highways Agency first started looking at options for improving the A14 corridor between Cambridge and Huntington in 2001 when they commissioned a multimodal study of the corridor. Scheme plans for improving this section of the Trunk Road network were first unveiled in 2005 but the scheme was dropped in 2010 following the Government’s comprehensive spending review. On June 27th 2013 the Government published ‘Investing in Britain’s Future’ a strategic long term plan for infrastructure investment in the UK. The plan is a commitment by the current Government to invest in infrastructure over the next parliament and includes a commitment to provide a proportion of the funding required to deliver the A14 Cambridge to Huntington Improvement Scheme subject to the demonstration of value for money and deliverability.

1.3 Following this announcement, on the 9th September 2013 the Highways Agency published a ‘Public Consultation on Route Options’. The latest scheme options proposed by the Highways Agency is a £1.5 billion scheme to improve the A14 Trunk Road between Huntingdon and Cambridge, over approximately 25 miles. The second paragraph in the introduction notes

‘The scheme will relieve congestion on one of the busiest stretches of the strategic road network between the West Midlands and the east coast ports. It will also enable local businesses to operate more effectively, allow a number of major residential developments to proceed and reduce congestion.’

1.4 The final paragraph on page 2 of the document notes:

‘The cost of developing the proposed scheme will be met from a number of sources. The largest proportion of funding will come from Central Government, but the local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnership in Greater Cambridge have pledged a total of £100m towards the costs of construction. In addition it is proposed that a toll will be introduced on part of the route so that road users will make a contribution.’

1.5 The fourth paragraph of page 8 of ‘Public Consultation on Route Options’ notes:

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

‘The Cambridge sub-region is one of the fastest growing areas of the United Kingdom in terms of population and economy. Between now and 2031, its population is expected to grow by 23 per cent, driving a 22 per cent increase in jobs. However congestion is regularly cited by business as a constraint on growth. The Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 notes that delivery of the joint development strategy for Cambridgeshire is threatened by congestion on the A14. Major developments, such as the new 10,000- home village at Northstowe, the Alconbury Enterprise Zone, and expansion on the northern and eastern fringes of Cambridge, all depend on an improved A14.’

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME

2.1 The A14 improvement scheme proposals between Ellington and the A10/A14 Milton Interchange include the following components:

• Construction of a bypass to the south of Huntingdon between Ellington and Swavesey. • Widening of the A1 trunk road between Brampton and Alconbury. • Provision of high standard roads for local traffic use running in parallel to an enhanced A14 carriageway between Girton and Swavesey. • Widening of the A14 Cambridge Northern Bypass between Milton and Girton including:

• Improvements to the Girton Interchange to improve capacity and safety. • Improvements to the Histon interchange. • Improvements to the Milton interchange.

2.2 A schematic drawing showing the components of the proposed scheme is presented below.

Figure 1: The Scheme Proposals (Source: Page 4/5, A14 Cambridge to Huntington improvement scheme, Public consultation on route options, September 2013).

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

2.3 It can be seen that the scheme is complex with a combination of new offline and online improvements that will require major changes to the local road network and connections to facilitate the delivery of scheme. The scheme is also likely to have a considerable impact on the surrounding local highway network as a result of the proposed tolling arrangements and reconfiguration of local road junction arrangements with the A14 corridor. The complexity of the scheme will therefore require extensive consultation with local stakeholders including Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire Council and Cambridgeshire County Council.

2.4 A public consultation exercise began in September 2013 to gain views on 6 route options that have been identified and the proposed tolling arrangements. The public consultation will end in October 2013 and at the present time there are currently no agreed firm proposals on the preferred route.

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

3.0 DELIVERY PROGRAMME

3.1 On page 22 of ‘Public Consultation on Route Options’ a delivery programme for the A14 scheme is presented which is reproduced in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: High Level Delivery Programme (Source: Page 22, A14 Cambridge to Huntington improvement scheme, Public consultation on route options, September 2013).

3.2 The delivery programme is a standard delivery programme for Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008 which is the approval legislation for delivering major infrastructure projects. Since the DCO was introduced we are not aware of any Highways Agency promoted schemes that

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

have been granted DCO and hence there has been no start of or completion of the scheme works under this legislation. Delivering Highways Agency schemes is a complex process as illustrated on the Highways Agency programme attached at Appendix BGH1. The programme illustrates on the basis of early contractor involvement that the planning stage can take around 5 years to complete before a start can be made on site. In October 2010 following the comprehensive spending review the Department of Transport published ‘Investment in Highways Transport Schemes’ which provided an updated programme of schemes. Para 30 of this document acknowledges that highways schemes can take up to six years to develop before construction can begin.

3.3 To put the scale of the £1.5 billion A14 Improvement project into context, ‘Investment in Highways Transport Schemes’ identifies the following 14 major schemes are to be delivered at a total cost of £1.4 billion:

I. M1 Junctions 28-31

II. M1 Junctions 32 – 35a

III. M1 Junctions 39 – 42

IV. M25 Junctions 5 - 6/7

V. M4 Junctions 19 – 20 and M5 Junctions 15 – 17

VI. M6 Junctions 5 – 8

VII. M60 Junctions 8 – 12

VIII. M60 Junctions 12 – 15

IX. M62 Junctions 18 – 20

X. M62 Junctions 25 – 30

XI. A11 Fiveways – Thetford

XII. A23 Handcross – Warninglid

XIII. A556 Knutsford - Bowdon

3.4 It can clearly be seen that the A14 scheme is a large scale project and it is therefore considered that this factor will considerably increase the complexity of

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

the design and hence the risks associated to its delivery programme through the planning and construction stages.

3.5 One example of the risks of delays to the programme is the option consultation exercise which is scheduled to finish on 13th October 2013 (Highway’s Agency Press Release, 16th September 2013). There is an approximate 10 week period between mid-October and the announcement of a preferred route in late 2013. This timescale is highly optimistic when compared to the Highways Agency’s standard delivery programme for major highway infrastructure attached at Appendix BGH1 – which suggests a period of around 6 months for this element of the programme (rows 17 to 21 of the programme). Given the scale and complexity of the scheme and the need to consult with an extensive number of local stakeholders, the time period between Option consultation and preferred route announcement is not considered to be a robust timeframe.

3.6 Other areas of risk in the programme can be attributed to the proposed tolling element of the scheme. The issue of tolling promotes much debate amongst the public and local stakeholders and there is currently only a single existing highway scheme under the responsibility of the Highways Agency (excluding bridge crossings) where tolling is present. This scheme is the M6 Birmingham Toll. The delivery programme for the M6 toll road lasted nearly 20 years with the key programme milestones summarised below:

• 1984: Department of Transport announced route options and carried out public consultation. • 1988: First Public Inquiry. • 1994: Second Public Inquiry. • 2003: Opening of toll road.

3.7 A standard Highways Agency delivery programme for a scheme involving tolling arrangements should not be expected. It is noteworthy that the M6 toll road in Birmingham was subject to two Public Inquiries. Therefore for the reasons outlined above it is considered that there is a reasonably high risk that the planning programme for the A14 scheme will slip. The planning history of the scheme to date would also suggest that the stated delivery timetable is at significant risk of delay. Attached at Appendix BGH2 is a simplified programme based upon the stages outlined in Figure 2 that is considered to be a more realistic timeframe for the planning stage. This programme identifies a start date for construction of the works to be during 2018.

3.8 On the issue of construction timescales it is stated at page 2 of ‘Public consultation on route options’:

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

‘Construction of the entire scheme, including associated de-trunking works, is expected to take between three and four years’

3.9 This statement assumes that the scheme will be constructed in one phase and this will clearly be dependent upon the resources and funding being available for the scheme over the expected construction period. On the basis the scheme would be constructed in a single phase the expected construction period appears to be reasonable. However, until the scheme has gone through the planning stages over the next 4 to 6 years there can be no degree of certainty at this stage that the scheme will be delivered in a single phase over a 3 to 4 year construction period. For example a decision could feasibly be taken through the planning stages to construct the scheme in two phases over a longer period of time due to deliverability/funding constraint issues.

3.10 A case study example of a scheme being constructed in two phases is the A1 Dishforth to Barton improvement scheme. During the Public Inquiry the Secretary of State decided the scheme was to be developed as two linked schemes: Dishforth to Leeming and Leeming to Barton (Source: Highways Agency, A1 Leeming to Barton Improvement, Public Exhibition Materials, 2013). The 19.3 km section between Dishforth and Leeming was delivered first. This section of the scheme was constructed between March 2009 and March 2012 at a cost of £315 million (Source: www.highways.gov.uk). The 20 km section between Leeming and Barton is expected to be constructed between early 2014 and mid-2016 at a cost of £314 million (Source: www.highways.gov.uk) (i.e. 5 years to construct the scheme in its entirety – with the full scheme measuring 40 km at a total cost of £629 million). Given the scale and complexity of the proposed A14 improvement scheme it is feasible that it will also be delivered in stages. In this event the full scheme may not be delivered by the Highways Agency’s expected completion date. On this basis the draft programme at Appendix BGH2 illustrates that even if DCO was granted the scheme would feasibly not be completed in its entirety until 2023.

3.11 The funding uncertainty risks to the A14 scheme are explored in the next section.

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

4.0 FUNDING STRATEGY

4.1 As noted in paragraph 1.2 Central Government announced a commitment to part fund the A14 scheme in the next parliament subject to demonstration of value for money and deliverability. It is important to note that these two conditions have not been satisfied to date and they can only ever be met once a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been issued. The Highways Agency currently hope for DCO to be issued in early 2016 but clearly there is still significant uncertainty in meeting this timetable for the reasons outlined previously in Section 3.0.

4.2 The total scheme cost is estimated to be £1.5 billion (Source: Page 2, A14 Cambridge to Huntington improvement scheme, Public consultation on route options, September 2013). At this stage it is not clear what the final breakdown and mechanisms of the scheme funding would be. The apparent funding breakdown taken from a number of sources including press articles and the Highways Agency website is as follows:

• £1 billion commitment from the Treasury although the Treasury has stated that the A14 scheme is still subject to value for money and deliverability tests (Source: Investing in Britain’s future, HM Treasury, 27th June 2013). • £100 million from Local Enterprise Partnerships and councils, excluding Cambridge City Council (Source: Highways Agency Press Release of 16th September 2013, Reminder: A14 upgrade public exhibitions – 17 September to October 2013). It is noted that Cambridge City Council has refused to contribute any money on the grounds that the scheme would not benefit the City (Source: £1.5bn upgrade gets green light for 2016, Cambridge News, 28th June 2013). Other authorities are questioning the principle of tolling. • £50 million from rates paid at the new Alconbury enterprise zone (Source: Cambridge News, A14 upgrade on brink of green light after £300bn fund announced, 26th June 2013). • The remainder (i.e. circa £300m) would come from tolling between Girton and Ellington. The Highways Agency recognises that a very small number of major highway infrastructure projects are funded through tolling (Page 6, A14 Cambridge to Huntington improvement scheme, Public consultation on route options, September 2013). There is currently no agreement on:

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

• The best tolling solution. • The length of road that should be tolled. • The tariff.

4.3 The proposed funding strategy has already been met with opposition from the Road Hauliers Association which believes tolling a section of the A14 scheme would harm hauliers who use the A14 to transport goods between the container port at Felixstowe and the Midlands and would put business in East Anglia at a competitive disadvantage.

4.4 Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.2 clearly demonstrate that there is no certainty over the funding being available for the A14 scheme. It is acknowledged that Central Government has announced commitments subject to conditions to part fund the scheme but this does not amount to certainty that the funding will be available. Furthermore the complex nature of the funding mechanism (i.e. reliance on tolling and contributions from Local Authorities, etc) adds to the uncertainty that firstly the funding will be available and secondly the programme delivery timescales can be achieved.

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

5.0 POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF A TOLL ROAD

5.1 There is little experience of modelling tolled roads in the UK (Page 80, Atkins’ report to the Department for Transport of November 2012 entitled A14 Study: Output 3, Package Testing and Appraisal Report).

5.2 Page 79 of Atkins’ report also acknowledges that the introduction of a toll would change traffic demand as a result of:

• Suppression of the total number of trips made (trip generation); • Changing trip origins, destinations and trip lengths (trip distribution); and • Re-routing of trips at a local and strategic level (re-assignment).

5.3 There is a risk that tolling may push traffic away from the A14 on to alternative roads. For example, it was estimated “that about 70,000 vehicles per day would be using the road within a year of opening, and 80,000 after 3 years” (Page 45, UCL, Project Profile: M6 Toll Road). Between 2004 and 2011 the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADF) flow on the M6 toll road was between 39,000 and 42,000 (Department for Transport, Traffic Counts, Count Point ID: 80834). In contrast, between 2004 and 2011, 120,000 to 130,000 vehicles per day used the original M6 motorway (AADF, Department for Transport, Traffic Counts, Count Point ID: 70230).

5.4 Lower than expected levels of traffic on the toll road would have major financial implications. For example, Midlands Expressway Limited, which operates the M6 toll road, made a loss of £41 million during 2011 (Page 10, Midland Expressway Limited, “Annual report and financial statements for the year end 31 December 2011”). Midlands Expressway Limited is now in massive debt as a result of lower than forecast use of the toll road. At 31st December 2011 the company had net liabilities of over £610 million (Page 4, Midland Expressway Limited, “Annual report and financial statements for the year end 31 December 2011”).

5.5 The risk of the A14 scheme being reliant on funding from tolling further adds to the complexity and uncertainty of the scheme being delivered in the timescales set out in the ‘Public consultation on route options’ – 2013.

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The Highways Agency is proposing a major £1.5 billion improvement to the A14 trunk road.

6.2 Major developments in Cambridge, such as the proposed development at Northstowe and expansion on the northern and eastern fringes of Cambridge depend on an improved A14.

6.3 Significant risks to the delivery programme and funding strategy for the A14 improvement scheme have been identified. Case studies of other major highway improvement schemes show that the Highways Agency’s expected delivery programme is highly optimistic.

6.4 The scheme is still in the early stages of development and there is currently no agreement on the best tolling solution, the length of road that should be tolled or the tariff. A considerable amount of technical work needs to be undertaken to progress from the existing options and consultation stage to a stage where the preferred scheme design has been developed in detail and the associated traffic impacts have been assessed and are fully understood. It must be considered that since the scheme is currently still in the options and consultation stage there is consequently a very high level of risk to the project.

6.5 The scheme would be partly funded by tolling. This is a non-standard funding strategy for a major highway improvement scheme. Case study evidence suggests that tolling is likely to result in a lengthy Public Inquiry.

6.6 A significant proportion of funding for the scheme would come from the Treasury – which has stated that the A14 scheme is still subject to value for money and deliverability tests.

6.7 This note has demonstrated that due to the highly complex nature of the scheme there is considerable uncertainty over the availability of funding, and the deliverability of the scheme including the timetable announced by the Highways Agency. It can therefore be concluded there are significant risks to the timescales for delivery of the A14 Cambridge to Huntington Improvement Scheme.

6.8 The recent Department for Transport publication “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” (February 2013) sets out the Highways Agency’s new approach to the Strategic Road Network – which is based on utilisation of a range of strategic tools to deliver travel demand management

12-167-003-02

Cambridge South East A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme - Programme and Funding Risks Note

measures and the delivery of sustainable development. This change in emphasis, away from an approach that is focussed exclusively on the provision of more highway capacity, and towards an approach that seeks to maximise sustainable development opportunities, directly accords with the promotion of Cambridge South East as a location for sustainable development.

12-167-003-02

APPENDIX BGH 1 TPI: Speeding Up Delivery - Early Contractor Involvement with Orders ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Successors 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 0 EDB TPI - SUD, With Orders, Non Controversial 427 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 04/06/10 1 Time to Output Delivered:Road Open 371 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 08/05/09 2 Time to Start of Works 263 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 13/04/07 3 Feasibility Stage 80 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 10/10/03 4 Phase 1 43 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 24/01/03 5 PROJECT SPONSOR (AGENCY) COMMISSIONED 0 wks Mon 01/04/02 Mon 01/04/02 6 01/04 6 Agree Procurement Strategy 4 wks Mon 01/04/02 Fri 26/04/02 5 7 7 Select Framework Consultant and Brief 4 wks Mon 29/04/02 Fri 24/05/02 6 8 8 Investigate alternatives 2 wks Mon 27/05/02 Fri 07/06/02 7 9 9 Collect Data/Liaise with Key Bodies 9 wks Mon 10/06/02 Fri 09/08/02 8 10 10 Selection of PC Options 10 wks Mon 12/08/02 Fri 18/10/02 9 11FS-1 wk 11 Value Management 6 wks Mon 14/10/02 Fri 22/11/02 10FS-1 wk 12FS-2 wks 12 Reports and Approvals 8 wks Mon 11/11/02 Fri 03/01/03 11FS-2 wks 14,13FS-5 wks 13 Prepare for Public Consultation 8 wks Mon 02/12/02 Fri 24/01/03 12FS-5 wks 14 14 PUBLIC CONSULTATION STARTED 0 wks Fri 24/01/03 Fri 24/01/03 13,12 16 24/01 15 Phase 2 37 wks Mon 27/01/03 Fri 10/10/03 16 Public Consultation and Report 16 wks Mon 27/01/03 Fri 16/05/03 14 17 17 Selection of Preferred Scheme 9 wks Mon 19/05/03 Fri 18/07/03 16 19,18 18 OGC Gateway Number 2 -Procurement Stratergy 4 wks Mon 21/07/03 Fri 15/08/03 17 24,25 19 Reports and Approval 8 wks Mon 21/07/03 Fri 12/09/03 17 20 20 DETR/Ministerial Approval 4 wks Mon 15/09/03 Fri 10/10/03 19 21 21 PREFERRED ROUTE ANNOUNCEMENT 0 wks Fri 10/10/03 Fri 10/10/03 20 26 10/10 22 Implementation Stage 191 wks Mon 18/08/03 Fri 13/04/07 23 Phase 3 98 wks Mon 18/08/03 Fri 01/07/05 24 OJEC Procedures and Tender Selection 17 wks Mon 18/08/03 Fri 12/12/03 18 26 25 Preperation of Contract Documents 15 wks Mon 18/08/03 Fri 28/11/03 18 26 26 Tender Period 15 wks Mon 15/12/03 Fri 26/03/04 25,24,21 27 27 TenderAssessment 10 wks Mon 29/03/04 Fri 04/06/04 26 28 28 OGC Gateway Number 3- Tender Evaluation 4 wks Mon 07/06/04 Fri 02/07/04 27 31,29 29 Award Contract 0 wks Fri 02/07/04 Fri 02/07/04 28 30 02/07 30 Further Design, VM, VE, Exhibition and Consultation 17 wks Mon 05/07/04 Fri 29/10/04 29 32 31 Supplementary Survey 20 wks Mon 05/07/04 Fri 19/11/04 28 32 32 Reports and Project approvals (inc. Traffic and Economics) 14 wks Mon 22/11/04 Fri 25/02/05 30,31 33,34 33 Draft Orders Preperation 14 wks Mon 28/02/05 Fri 03/06/05 32 35 34 Environmental Statement and Record of Determination 12 wks Mon 28/02/05 Fri 20/05/05 32 35 35 Stage 3 Assessment Report 2 wks Mon 06/06/05 Fri 17/06/05 33,34 38,37,36 36 Preperations for Orders Publications 2 wks Mon 20/06/05 Fri 01/07/05 35 38 37 Inform DETR/Ministers 2 wks Mon 20/06/05 Fri 01/07/05 35 38 38 DRAFT ORDERS AND ENVIRNMENTAL STATEMENT PUBLISHED 0 wks Fri 01/07/05 Fri 01/07/05 35,37,36 40 01/07 39 Phase 4 77 wks Mon 04/07/05 Fri 22/12/06 40 Objection Period 13 wks Mon 04/07/05 Fri 30/09/05 38 41 41 Perperation for the PI 26 wks Mon 03/10/05 Fri 31/03/06 40 42 42 PUBLIC INQUIRY STARTS 0 wks Fri 31/03/06 Fri 31/03/06 41 43 31/03 43 Public Inquiry 4 wks Mon 03/04/06 Fri 28/04/06 42 44,46 44 Post Public Inquiry Risk Assessment 1 wk Mon 01/05/06 Fri 05/05/06 43 45 45 Contractor's Detailed Design 26 wks Mon 08/05/06 Fri 03/11/06 44 59 46 Inspector's Report Preperation 12 wks Mon 01/05/06 Fri 21/07/06 43 48,47 47 (Consider Giving Notice on Agricultural Land Tenancies) 2 wks Mon 24/07/06 Fri 04/08/06 46 48 Decision Letter 6 wks Mon 24/07/06 Fri 01/09/06 46 49 49 Ministerial Decision 4 wks Mon 04/09/06 Fri 29/09/06 48 50 50 SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISION ANNOUNCED 0 wks Fri 29/09/06 Fri 29/09/06 49 51 29/09 51 Make Orders 6 wks Mon 02/10/06 Fri 10/11/06 50 52 52 High Court Challenge Period 6 wks Mon 13/11/06 Fri 22/12/06 51 55,53 53 ORDERS' MADE 0 wks Fri 22/12/06 Fri 22/12/06 52 56 22/12 54 Phase 5 16 wks Mon 25/12/06 Fri 13/04/07 55 Perpare and Serve Notice to Treat and Enter 4 wks Mon 25/12/06 Fri 19/01/07 52 56,57,58 56 Relocation Period to Secure Land Entry 9 wks Mon 22/01/07 Fri 23/03/07 55,53 59 57 Confirm Works Price 4 wks Mon 22/01/07 Fri 16/02/07 55 58 58 Arrange Start of Works 8 wks Mon 19/02/07 Fri 13/04/07 55,57 59 59 START OF WORKS 0 wks Fri 13/04/07 Fri 13/04/07 45,58,56 62 13/04 60 Construction Stage 108 wks Mon 16/04/07 Fri 08/05/09 61 Phase 6 108 wks Mon 16/04/07 Fri 08/05/09 62 Construction Period 104 wks Mon 16/04/07 Fri 10/04/09 59 63 63 OGC Gateway 4 4 wks Mon 13/04/09 Fri 08/05/09 62 64 64 OUTPUT DELIVERED: ROAD OPEN 0 wks Fri 08/05/09 Fri 08/05/09 63 67,68,69FS+52 wks 08/05 65 Operation Stage 56 wks Fri 08/05/09 Fri 04/06/10 66 Phase 7 56 wks Fri 08/05/09 Fri 04/06/10 67 Project Evaluation Review 4 wks Mon 11/05/09 Fri 05/06/09 64 68 Handover to Project Owner 0 wks Fri 08/05/09 Fri 08/05/09 64 08/05 69 OGC Gateway Review 5: Post Implementation Review 4 wks Mon 10/05/10 Fri 04/06/10 64FS+52 wks 70 70 POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW CLOSEDOWN 0 wks Fri 04/06/10 Fri 04/06/10 69 04/06

Project: EDB TPI - SUD, With Orders, Task Progress Summary Rolled Up Critical Task Rolled Up Progress External Tasks External Milestone Printed: Wed 25/04/07 Author: Alan Baxter Critical Task Milestone Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Split Project Summary Deadline

Page 1 Lasted Saved Tue 24/04/07

APPENDIX BGH 2 A14 CAMBRIDGE TO HUNTINGDON IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PREPARED BY BRYAN G HALL

Task Name Duration 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4

Option Consultation 3 Qtrs

Preferred Route

Pre-application consultation 3 Qtrs

DCO Application

Acceptance 1 Qtr

DCO accepted by PINS

Pre-Examination 2 Qtrs

DCO Examination 4 Qtrs

Report to SoS

Decision 2 Qtrs

SoS Decision

Post Decision 1 Qtr

Appeal Deadline

Construction 20 Qtrs

Opening

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\A14 Improvement Scheme\A14 Improvement Works - Delivery Programme TM v1.1 Programme 1 230913

Registered Office London Office

Suite E8 Joseph’s Well Suites 17 & 18 Lighterman House Registered in England & Wales Hanover Walk 26-36 Wharfdale Road Co No: 4104802 Leeds LS3 1AB London N1 9RY

VAT No: 399 4601 07 Telephone: 0113 246 1555 Telephone: 0203 077 2162

Email: [email protected] Website: www.bryanghall.co.uk

Cambridge South East

Hills Road Corridor – Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Improvements

September 2013

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

COMMERCIAL ESTATES GROUP

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Report by: Tom Murphy

Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers Suite E8, Joseph’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB

Ref: 12-167-004-02

Date: September 2013

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS TO CYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE 3

3.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO HILLS ROAD CORRIDOR 7

4.0 CONCLUSION 9

APPENDICES

Appendix BGH1 Hills Road: Bus Priority Opportunities

Cambridge South East Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Hills Road is one of the key transport corridors in Cambridge. It provides a connection from Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Babraham Research Centre towards Cambridge City Centre (including Cambridge train station).

1.2 Hills Road would represent the main sustainable transport corridor towards Cambridge City Centre for the Cambridge South East development – particularly for land north of Babraham Road Park and Ride site.

1.3 Cambridgeshire County Council acknowledges that Hills Road is well used by cyclists (Cambridge City Cycle City Ambition Grant to Department for Transport - Page 11, Section B: The Business Case). The Draft Transport Strategy (DTS) for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire prepared by Cambridgeshire County Council states that it is one of the main routes used by buses in Cambridge (Page 4-7). Page 4-7 of the DTS also recognises that improvements are required on certain routes used by buses, including Hills Road, stating:

“A major impediment to the reliability of and the further increase in usage of bus services within and into Cambridge is the delay experienced by buses due to congestion caused by general vehicular traffic in the city. With the growth that is planned for the city, this impediment must be removed if the bus network is to become the mode of choice for many more journeys. A step change in the quality, availability and reliability of bus services within the city is needed. To achieve this, comprehensive bus priority is required over time on main routes used by buses”.

1.4 Page 4-7 of the DTS proposes re-allocation of road space to benefit buses in Cambridge:

“In order to achieve a level of priority that will guarantee buses are able to get past congestion on the road network, general vehicular traffic will need to be restricted on some routes. These are likely to include Hills Road…”

1.5 This note describes committed and potential improvements to existing sustainable transport infrastructure on Hills Road and demonstrates that these schemes are deliverable and would enable development at Cambridge South East.

1.6 The committed scheme involves implementation of an improvement scheme for cyclists in the short term, by 2015. An opportunity to implement an improvement

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

scheme for buses is also identified – to deliver the vision set out in the DTS regarding the reallocation of road space in favour of sustainable modes. These schemes are described below. A description is also provided of other committed improvements to existing cycle infrastructure on key routes around Cambridge South East.

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

2.0 COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS TO CYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

2.1 A package of committed improvements to existing cycle infrastructure has been developed by Cambridgeshire County Council that will provide higher quality linkages to nearby destinations in the local area around the site. Key routes that will be improved include Hills Road, Babraham Road, Long Road and Cherry Hinton High Street. These improvements are described below.

2.2 Cambridgeshire County Council made a successful Cycle City Ambition Grant application to the Department for Transport in April 2013. This application resulted in £1.65 million of funding being secured for improvements to existing cycle infrastructure on Hills Road and Babraham Road.

2.3 Hills Road is already a very well used route for cyclists linking Addenbrooke’s with the City Centre. The Hills Road scheme involves the provision of 2.1 metre wide unidirectional cycle lanes that are segregated from traffic and that segregate cyclists from pedestrians. The cycle lanes would be located on both sides of Hills Road. The scheme has been estimated to cost £1.2 million and would be delivered by 2015 (with 100% of funding having been secured from the Department for Transport). A cross section of the scheme is shown in Figure 1 (Source: Plan 1, Cambridgeshire City Council Cycle City Ambition Grant application to the Department for Transport, April 2013).

Figure 1: Hills Road Cycle Lanes

2.4 The first cross section presented in Figure 1 shows the existing situation on Hills Road but does not reflect the actual cross section observed on site during a recent site visit. The actual cross section includes both a segregated off-road northbound cycle lane and an on-road northbound cycle lane – as shown in Figure 2. Details of

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

the existing cross section and associated dimensions would need to be confirmed on site together with any associated constraints.

Figure 2: Hills Road – Existing Layout

2.5 The Babraham Road scheme involves extension of an existing pedestrian and cycle route between Babraham Road Park and Ride site and Wandlebury Country Park to Babraham Research Campus. The scheme involves a 2.0 metre wide shared use path, with a 1.0 metre verge strip to keep users away from the carriageway. The scheme would cost £650,000, with £450,000 of funding already secured from the Department of Transport. The nearby Babraham Research Park has underlined their commitment to promoting sustainable journeys to work by offering £200,000 of funding towards the scheme. No drawing was included within the Cycle City Ambition Grant application for this improvement scheme. A schematic drawing is provided below in Figure 3 showing this committed scheme.

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

Figure 3: Babraham Road Cycle Scheme

2.6 The Cycle City Ambition Grant application also included proposals to improve existing cycle infrastructure on Long Road and Cherry Hinton High Street. No drawing was included within the Cycle City Ambition Grant application for this improvement scheme.

2.7 Table 1 provides a summary of the costs and funding arrangements for the cycle infrastructure that is identified in the Cycle City Ambition Grant application.

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

Table 1: Summary of DfT Cycle City Ambition Grant Application Cycle Route Schemes Funding Scheme Cost DfT Local Authority Third Party

Hills Road Segregated Lanes £1.2m £1.2m (by 2015) None None

Wandlebury to Babraham Institute £650,000 £450,000 (by 2014) None £200,000

£100,00 (S.106 by Long Road Cycleways £100,000 None None 2014)

£250,000 (S.106 by Cherry Hinton High Street £250,000 None None 2015)

2.8 Cambridgeshire County Council has recently introduced an ‘early start’ traffic signal for cyclists waiting in the advanced stop box on a junction on the main route from Cambridge railway station to the city centre (Source: Cambridge cyclists get head start at junction, Local Transport Today, 6th September 2013). Giving cyclists a head start would allow them to clear the junction ahead of general traffic and should reduce accidents. The Council has identified two other junctions where cyclists could be given a head start – one of which is near Addenbrooke’s Hospital close to the Cambridge South East site. This is further evidence of the continuing programme of improvements for cycling in South Cambridge.

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

3.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO HILLS ROAD CORRIDOR

3.1 In addition to the segregated cycle lanes on Hills Road it is also feasible to provide a northbound bus lane along a section of Hills Road between Long Road and Cherry Hinton Road. This would provide bus priority and improve bus journey times and journey reliability for buses travelling on Hills Road towards Cambridge City Centre.

3.2 This opportunity could form part of a package of sustainable transport infrastructure measures that would facilitate development at Cambridge South East. A schematic drawing showing the Hills Road bus lane scheme is provided in Appendix 1.

3.3 The proposed cross section submitted as part of the Department for Transport Cycle City Grant application did not include a northbound bus lane. The cross section allowed for a 1.5 metre wide landscaping strip on the outer edges of Hills Road – as shown in Figure 1. The bus lane opportunity involves a 3.0 metre wide northbound bus lane with narrowing of these landscaping strips to 0.5 metres and with a marginal narrowing of the two traffic lanes (from 3.5 metres to 3.3 metres). The minimum recommended width for a bus lane is 3.0 metres (Source: Manual for Streets 2, Paragraph 7.2.2). An illustrative cross section of showing how the bus lane could be integrated with the Department for Transport cycle scheme is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Hills Road – Cross Section Incorporating a Northbound Bus Lane

3.4 The opportunity identified accords directly with sustainable transport principles set out in the DTS which promotes the re-allocation of road space in favour of sustainable transport modes (Source: Page 4-7 of DTS). The DTS recognises that in order to achieve a level of priority that will guarantee buses are able to get past congestion on the road network, general vehicular traffic will need to be

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

restricted on some routes. Page 4-7 of the DTS identifies Hills Road as one such corridor that could be subject to this re-allocation of road space.

3.5 Bryan G Hall has estimated that the bus lane proposal would cost in the order of £250,000 to deliver – based predominantly on re-marking of the existing carriageway.

12-167-004.02

Cambridge South East Report

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 A package of committed and potential improvements to sustainable transport infrastructure on Hills Road corridor will further enhance the quality of journeys between Cambridge South East and Cambridge City Centre for cyclists and buses. In comparison to the major transport infrastructure requirements associated with alternative strategic sites the interventions on Hills Road have been shown to be both deliverable and cost effective.

4.2 The committed and potential improvements to sustainable transport infrastructure on Hills Road are directly aligned with principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework – which seeks to avoid reliance upon major transport infrastructure to deliver development. It also accords with the National Planning Policy Framework’s emphasis on promotion of public transport, walking and cycling and the need to exploit sustainable transport options.

12-167-004.02

APPENDIX BGH 1

Registered Office London Office

Suite E8 Joseph’s Well Suites 17 & 18 Lighterman House Registered in England & Wales Hanover Walk 26-36 Wharfdale Road Co No: 4104802 Leeds LS3 1AB London N1 9RY

VAT No: 399 4601 07 Telephone: 0113 246 1555 Telephone: 0203 077 2162

Email: [email protected] Website: www.bryanghall.co.uk

Appendix C: Cambourne Case Study - ‘Lessons from Cambourne’ Review

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

Title: Lessons from Cambourne: Review

Number: SEC / 03 Date: September 2013 Author: Jon Harris Project Code: 1329 integrated transport planning Rev: A

Lessons from Cambourne is a report officially published by Inspire East and Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd, which aims to evaluate the implementation of original Cambourne master plan and draw conclusions and lessons to be used in similar developments.

This review will list key drawbacks related to the transport sustainability of the site and reflect on how the development has evolved given its original ethos as a ’model’ sustainable settlement

Two key objectives of sustainability embodied in the Cambourne master plan, of self-sufficiency and high performance environmental design, do not seem to have been met. Cambourne is not self-contained in terms of jobs, secondary schools or services. Consequently car use and car ownership is high.

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 1 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

The Masterplan Objectives table (found on pg 18, Lessons from Cambourne), suggests that only 38% of respondents think that the transport sustainability objectives were met. This is a strong evidence of failure to execute the original vision of sustainability of the Cambourne site.

Key Transport Sustainability Issues

Poor provision of public transport

Generally, the comments of the public indicate that public transport provision in Cambourne is not satisfactory. Their comments included:

 lack of express bus service to Cambridge and St Neots  long bus travel times due to extensive route  lack of initiative to improve the bus service; instead, the road to Cambridge is being widened  Cambourne needs to be settled enough in order to reduce the car use  buses do not coincide well with London trains from St Neots; buses do not stop at the station  initially, provision of sustainable transport was poor, there were no alternatives to car – lack of execution of sustainability goals

(pg 53-54, Lessons from Cambourne)

Cycle routes and footpaths out of Cambourne are not well provided

Insufficient attempt has been made to link Cambourne to longer distance footpaths or to create cycle ways. Provision for disabled access is poor. There are big kerbs at junctions and metal barriers on the sidewalks to deter cyclists which create obstacles for wheel chairs and buggies. The public comments included:

 There is no cycle route nor footpath to Comberton and surrounding villages  Absence of safe cycleway to Cambridge

(pg 54, Lessons from Cambourne)

Extra car trips generated due to the need of children to travel to Comberton or Cambridge for secondary education

The size of the new settlement is too small to justify building a secondary school, so children have to go to Comberton Village College, over seven miles away. The schools have very good reputations and this has been a strong selling point. But Comberton will soon have to turn away children from Cambourne and they will have to go to schools in Cambridge.

Comments from the interviewed people included:

 There are a lot of people with young families - not having a senior school and having to bus older children to Comberton isn’t satisfactory  It would be a lot easier with a secondary school  Children go to Comberton or Cambridge. Places are sought after and it’s difficult to get in.  They will need 30 school buses a day to Comberton

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 2 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

 Children have difficulty attending after school clubs. It would be more sustainable if there would be a secondary school  Children comment that they don’t like having to stay on after school for out-of-school activities and then travel back

(pg 47-48, Lessons from Cambourne)

Lack of local employment opportunities and the need to travel to work by car

People identify the lack of local employment opportunities and the need to travel to work by car as the key issues in Cambourne’s failure to be ‘sustainable’.

Comments from the public:

 Lack of local employment opportunities -the idea was that people wouldn’t need their car to get to work

(pg 52-53, Lessons from Cambourne)

High motor vehicle use

Stakeholders lament Cambourne’s car dependency. There is a regular bus service to Cambridge and a train service from St Neots for people commuting to London, but many people may prefer to travel by car. People in Cambourne do seem to be very car dependent and the level of car ownership is high relative to other places in the region. Comments from the public suggested:

 Less choice of travel in compared with Cambridge – Cambridge has everything required within cycling or walking distance  Detailed design faults of Cambourne that encourage more car use than might have been necessary  Lack of accessibility  Cambourne was built for cars, like Milton Keynes  Cambourne is very car dependent

(pg 53, Lessons from Cambourne)

Lack of connection to surround villages

There does seem to be a lack of connection to some surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. This may have been intentional, since the residents of existing villages were largely opposed to Cambourne being built. A new settlement should have good pedestrian and cycle links to local footpaths and bridleways and these rights of way need to be established well in advance of construction.

Cambourne is surrounded on three sides by a perimeter fence and ditch, and on the north side it is bounded by the A428 dual carriageway. There is only one crossing over the A428, using the access road flyover. So to reach any attractive footpath involves a stretch of road walking across the flyover, and along the old A428. There has been no attempt to advertise these walks from Cambourne, so many residents may be unaware of them. Comments of the public included:

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 3 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

 Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding agricultural landscape.  There is no easy way to get from Cambourne to the surrounding settlements.

(pg 21-23, Lessons from Cambourne)

Lack of local convenience shops generates extra car trips

74% of residents do their main food shopping at Morrison’s in Cambourne; 11% go to Tesco’s at Bar Hill and only 10% go to Cambridge or St Neots. Not surprisingly, since there are few other shops in Cambourne, 80% of residents do their non-food shopping in Cambridge.

Comments included:

 The huge supermarket at Bar Hill killed the prospect of any other shops  People want a pop-in, but it is difficult to make it viable  Small businesses can’t afford the rents

(pg 15; 48, Lessons from Cambourne)

Statistics – Travel and Car Ownership

Contrary to the widely held view that most Cambourne residents commute, only 6% of Cambourne’s employed travel to work in London, most of whom drive to St Neots station and catch the King’s Cross train service. This compared to only 3% of Cambridge’s resident population who worked in London at the time.

The majority of Cambourne’s employed (71%) travel less than 20km to work or study, the distance to Cambridge. Only 8% travel more than 40km. This pattern is similar to that in the rest of South Cambs.

However, only 19% employed in Cambourne travel short distances of less than 5km compared to 37% in S. Cambs. This means that the average distance to work and study for Cambourne residents is farther than for other South Cambs residents, about 23km compared with 15km.

This greater distance is reflected in slightly greater car use and less cycling and walking. 81% of Cambourne residents travel by car compared with 78% of South Cambs District and only 8% walk or cycle compared with 14% in South Cambs. 11% of Cambourne residents use the train or bus as part of their journey system. The difference is greater if we compare Cambourne with Cambridge City.

In Cambridge only 42% use their car for work or school and 40% cycle or walk. (Census, 2006). It is possible that, with regular bus services from Cambourne to Cambridge, the proportion of people using public transport has increased.

Car ownership is high. 95% of households have at least one motor vehicle compared with only 68% in Cambridge and 88% in S. Cambs. Over half of Cambourne households (56%) have 2 or more vehicles, compared with 38% of S. Cambs. households and only 21% of Cambridge City households (Census, 2001).

(pg 15, Lessons from Cambourne)

InspireEast’s Excellence Framework

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 4 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

The stakeholder survey used InspireEast’s Excellence Criteria (2007) to assess Cambourne. The Framework, devised in conjunction with the Building Research Establishment, is based on the eight components of a sustainable community proposed by Egan. Its purpose is to assess the quality of a whole range of sustainable communities’ projects – urban and rural, the built environment and community regeneration. The standard is aimed at improving both processes and finished projects.

The table above summarises stakeholder responses to InspireEast’s Excellence Criteria. The results indicate that majority of the interview stakeholders do not think that the transport and connectivity aspect is satisfactory in the Cambourne site. The survey forms could be found on pg 67-71 of the Lessons from Cambourne report.

Key Conclusions

To conclude, sustainability in Cambourne was imagined by the masterplanners as the big idea that would provide this sense of purpose. And the traditional character of the English village, it was imagined, would give the settlement its image and identity. But Cambourne is no more sustainable, in any real sense, than other parts of the region and Cambourne is an urban community divorced from its surrounding countryside.

The key conclusions include:

 High levels of car use maintained  Limited use of public transport  Walking and cycling low apart from local trips  Still a strong dependence on Cambridge  Increased distances travelled for work and services whereas Cambridge is compact and all cyclable

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 5 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

 New settlement policy in Cambridgeshire (S Cambs in particular) doesn’t reflect human nature and that on the basis of this ‘dilution’ off sustainable transport that the same thing will not happen with Northstowe etc

Although most of the gathered evidence is qualitative, it perfectly reflects the key sustainability drawbacks of the Cambourne site. Who can describe the needs more accurately if not the inhabitants of Cambourne themselves?

KEY UPDATE (as of September 2013)

1. A new secondary school was opened in September 2013

Cambourne Village College is a new secondary school that opened in Cambourne. This will have a positive influence on reducing trips generated by educations purposes but only in the long term. It is unlikely that children living in Cambourne will change their current secondary schools to attend the new (they are familiar with their current secondary school, have acquired friends there etc.). More information is available on http://www.cambournevc.org/.

2. Withdrawal of the direct bus service from Cambourne to St Neots

Following an update by Stagecoach to bus routes in Cambridgeshire, Cambourne and St Neots have now lost their direct bus service (apart from a single journey a day each way on Stagecoach’s 62 leaving Cambourne at 06:57, St Neots 07:28, and returning from St Neots at 18:50 Cambourne 19:16).

This effectively cuts Cambourne off from the west by public transport, and leaves Cambourne with no direct bus service to the key local railway station.

Here is a map of the new Stagecoach routes: http://www.stagecoachbus.com/uploads/huntingdonshire_dec12.pdf

3. “South Cambridgeshire Local Plan: Proposed Submission (DRAFT June 2013)” document suggests that replacement employment land needs to be delivered

The transference of employment land to a later phase in Cambourne’s development, coupled with the ‘neighbour' issues arising from proximity to a new residential allocation, suggests that the original vision for Cambourne, based on development of ‘self-standing’ community, will not be achieved.

The jobs originally planned for Cambourne have not come to fruition at the pace or scale proposed, with a continued demand for jobs in Cambridge and the sub-region. Employers are finding the Cambourne location less sustainable in economic terms and as a result the ‘sustainable community’ concept has been weakened.

“An equivalent quantity of employment land to that lost on the business park (8.1 ha. In June 2013) will be delivered in the northern part of the Cambourne West site rather than its current location. In order to be compatible with residential development this will primarily be in the B1 use class, although other suitable employment uses will be included to provide a mix of employment opportunities, including smaller units.” C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 6 of 6 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: SEC 03

(pg 67 Par. 7, South Cambridgeshire Local Plan: Proposed Submission (DRAFT June 2013))

C:\Users\parker\Dropbox\CEG Cambridge Page 7 of 7 SE\DRAFT SUBMISSION for 120913\Local Plan Rep\Appendix C Cambourne Case Study Annex\Appendix C Lessons from Cambourne - FORMATTED.docx

Appendix D: Public Transport Assessment, covering:

Journey times and service frequency issues Accessibility by bus and rail Cambridge South East and the public transport solution for this location

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Commercial Estates Group

Cambridge South East

FINAL

Transport Representation: Appendix D Public Transport Assessment

Cambridge Local Plan 2014 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan

September 2013

Produced by:

Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 32a Stoney Street The Lace Market Nottingham NG1 1LL

Tel: 0115 9886905

Contact: Jon Parker Email: [email protected] Web: www.itpworld.net

24/09/2013 i

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Document Control Sheet

Project Name SE Cambridge Development Client Commercial Estates Group Project Code 1329 Project Manager Jon Parker Project Director Jamie Wheway Quality Manager Jamie Wheway Start Date July 2013 Project Folder F:\1329\ Team Members Jon Parker, Jamie Wheway, Tim Edwards, Ian Stott, Arsalan Khalid Sub Consultants Jon Harris

Ver File name Description Prepared Reviewed Approved Date F:\1329\Reports\Public_ 1.0 FINAL TE JP JW 19/09/13 Transport_Appendix_v1-0.doc F:\1329\Reports\Public_ 1.1 FINAL TE JP JW 23/09/13 Transport_Appendix_v1-1.doc

Notice This report has been prepared for Commercial Estates Group in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Integrated Transport Planning Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

24/09/2013 ii

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 4

Scope of the report 4

2. CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISON AND COMPARISON 5

Cambridge South East 5 Current public transport provision at proposed development sites 5 Proposed public transport development and infrastructure 8

3. OUTLINING AN APPROACH TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FOR CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST 10

Roles and approach 10 Developing sustainable public transport options 10 Keeping realistic expectations 11

24/09/2013 3

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 1.1 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd. has been appointed by CEG to develop the principals and outline of a public transport strategy to serve proposed development areas in Cambridge South East. This forms part of a suite of transport evidence submitted to support the Draft Cambridge and Draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan process. 1.2 At the heart of the Cambridge South East development is an ability to promote and develop sustainable modes of travel so they are the primary choice for all trips made to and from the sites. The development’s unique location, compared to other proposed development sites, means that walking and cycling will be the first choice for the majority. However, there will be journeys undertaken where walking and cycling are not appropriate and so it is therefore vital that provision is in place to allow these trips to be made in the most sustainable way possible. 1.3 Its city perimeter location and its proximity to key interchanges, including the Babraham Road Park and Ride and Addenbrooke’s Hospital, means that Cambridge South East has an unparalleled ability to fit into the existing public transport network right from the initial stages of development. This also provides an excellent opportunity to develop on-site public transport, based on local needs, through the evolution of existing services. This approach aims to minimise the financial support required in the early stages of the development and, in the long term, gives the best opportunity for public transport to be both financially and environmentally sustainable. Scope of the report 1.4 The Public Transport Assessment considers first the existing transport provision surrounding the Cambridge South East development, it then goes on to compare this with other proposed developments detailed in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. Finally it considers the key elements that will form the basis of a Public Transport Strategy for the sites. 1.5 The report forms part of the wider transport appraisal for Cambridge South East, and is supported by the Sustainable Transport and Travel Plan assessment.

24/09/2013 4

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 2. CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISON AND COMPARISON Cambridge South East 2.1 The development sites are currently well served by public transport on their periphery. To the North, services Citi 1 and Citi 3 run from Cambridge City Centre towards Cherry Hinton, and on to Fulbourn. To the south the development boarders on to the Babraham Park and Ride site, which offers a peak time frequency of 10mins to Addenbrooke’s hospital, Cambridge Railway Station, the City Centre and the Cambridge Science Park. In addition to this the sites are within walking and cycling distance of Addenbrooke’s Hospital which is the key bus hub in the south of the city. 2.2 The main bus services serve Cambridge Railway Station offering onward travel to key destinations including London Stations. Routes that serve Whittlesford Parkway and Shelford Railway Stations are available, via a short walk, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Babraham Road. 2.3 Table 2.1 provides an overview of the key bus routes serving Cambridge South East; a map of the sites and surrounding bus routes can be found in Figure A1, at the back of the report. 2.4 Figure A4, at the back of the report, details train frequencies from key Railway stations around Cambridge. Table 2.1: Key bus services surrounding Cambridge South East Weekday Operating Bus Service Route Description Best Frequency times Babraham Road Park & Ride - P+R Service 99 City Centre - Milton Park-and- (Green Route) Ride 10 min 0706 (dep) - 2039 (arr) 13/13A/13B/X13 (Stop: opp Red Cambridge - Linton - Haverhill 0629 (twds Camb) - Cross Lane) (- Kedington) 30 min 2320 (frm Camb) Citi 3 Fison Road - City Centre - Rail (Stop: Fulbourn, Station - Cherry Hinton - 0653 (twds Camb) - Capital Park) Fulbourn 30 min 1915(frm Camb)

Citi 1 Arbury - City Centre - rail (Stop: Fulbourn, station - Addenbrooke’s - 0608 (twds Camb) until Capital Park) Cherry Hinton - Fulbourn 30 min 0010 (frm Camb)

Source: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/around/buses/atoz.htm?L=C&Loc=Cambridge checked 23/09/13 Current public transport provision at proposed development sites 2.5 When we compare Cambridge South East to the other key development sites identified in South Cambridgeshire’s Local Plan it is becomes apparent that, at present, no other site offers direct access to as many key employment, health and leisure destinations as Cambridge South East does. 2.6 This is not to say that the other sites are not well serviced by public transport. The proximity of Northstowe’s proposed development to the Longstanton Park and Ride, and the Busway that serves it, means there are quick and frequent services to key destinations in the city. Due to its location access to Cambridge Science Park is quicker than from Cambridge South East, however, travel to the main city centre destinations, including Cambridge Railway Station takes longer.

24/09/2013 5

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 2.7 The proposed developments at Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach are less well served and only offer direct bus access to Cambridge City Centre, and the City Centre and Science Park respectively. Any onward travel to the railway station and Addenbrooke’s Hospital would require an interchange. Waterbeach’s bus service is currently only hourly, however, it does have its own railway station on the London – Kings Lynn line. 2.8 Of the sites listed, direct access to the Grafton Centre, a key retail outlet in the city, is only available from the Babraham Park and Ride service to the south of the Cambridge South East development. 2.9 Fig 2.1 and Table 2.2 identify key destinations within the City and the travel times, by direct bus services, from each of the key development sites in South Cambridgeshire. As well as noting the comparative journey times from the respective locations, also note the level of direct connectivity ‘through the city’ on selective corridors, in contrast with the need for most passengers to interchange in the city centre, particularly to access Addenbrooke’s, the Science Park and the Grafton shopping centre.

Figure 2.1: Fastest direct Public Transport (bus) access times from planned developments, and Cambridge South East, to key destinations

24/09/2013 6

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Table 2.2: Fastest direct Public Transport (bus) access times from planned developments, and Cambridge South East, to key destinations Best local service Addenbrooke's Cambridge Cambridge City The Grafton Cambridge Site frequency Hospital Train Station Centre* Centre Science Park Cambridge South 15 min (Citi 3/1) 23 min (citi 1) 23 min (citi 3) 33 min (citi 3) N/A N/A East (North) Cambridge South 10min (P+R 99) 5 min 11 min 21 min 28 min 35min East (South) Bourn Airfield (Cambourne, nr 20 min (Citi 4) N/A N/A 22 min N/A N/A Broadway) Waterbeach Hourly (9) N/A N/A 28 min N/A 16 min (Fletcher Avenue) Northstowe (Longstanton High Hourly (citi 5) N/A N/A 32 min N/A N/A Street)

8min (Busway Northstowe 39 min 33 min 23 min N/A 10 min (Longstanton P+R) A,B,C)

* As defined by operators timetable, either Drummer Street or Emmanuel Street interchange Sources (checked 23/09/13): http://www.cambridgeshirebus.info/

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/around/buses/bus-times.htm 2.10 To illustrate the potential to reach several key destination types from Cambridge South East (compared to other proposed developments), we have carried out an accessibility analysis of the proposed spatial distribution within the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans, using an origin-based Relative Hansen assessment for the proposed development sites and Cambridge South East. This assessment provides an accessibility index with a value of between 0 and 1 for each of the sites for comparison. The index is based on the sum of the service or activity offered in each destination set, weighted by a function of cost between the given Origin-Destination pair (in this case travel time by PT or walking), divided by the total services of the destination set. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 2.3 below and are ranked according to the most accessible proposed development site for each destination type Table 2.3 Hanson Index Assessment of Accessibility Assessment Destinations

Key Destinations Employment (main Primary Schools Further Education Origins employment areas) Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Score Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

Bourn Airfield 0.12 4 0.15 4 0.44 4 0.21 2

Northstowe 0.33 3 0.35 2 0.46 3 0.16 4

Waterbeach 0.41 2 0.43 2 0.73 2 0.19 3

Cambridge SE 0.44 1 0.53 1 0.75 1 0.24 1

24/09/2013 7

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Proposed public transport development and infrastructure 2.11 One of the key benefits of the Cambridge South East Development is the opportunity to integrate the sites into the existing public transport network without the need for large infrastructure investment; offering a solid foundation to promote the use of public transport from the outset. 2.12 Initial proposals for the other development sites in South Cambridgeshire identify a number of large infrastructure projects that are required to make public transport a viable alternative to the private car. These include the development of a new Park and Ride site at Bourn Airfield, a new railway station at Waterbeach and significant investment to bus priority on corridors into the City from the north of Cambridge. 2.13 Table 2.4 details the key public transport infrastructure measures that are proposed at each of the sites along with an indication of whether the costs are likely to be low, medium or high, based on the scale of the measures considered, and the risk associated with each development based on investment and delivery. 2.14 For these sites to create an attractive public transport offer, heavy capital investment in infrastructure is needed from the outset. In addition to this, for sites like Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield, heavy bus subsidy would be required to increase frequencies to an attractive level before the majority of housing had been built. 2.15 The opportunities presented by developing around an existing network allows Cambridge South East to take an incremental approach in terms of delivery, building on firm commercial foundations to limit risk. 2.16 From discussions with Stagecoach, Cambridge’s main bus operator, there is currently capacity in the commercial network surrounding the Cambridge South East sites to cope with the initial stages of the development. 2.17 The only real infrastructure risk that has been identified is the potential overloading of Babraham Park and Ride, however, the County Council has recently expanded the parking facilities from 1,000 spaces to 1,500 so there should be capacity to cope with additional demand. 2.18 Given the proximity of the development to the Park and Ride, the masterplan and travel plan will place a heavy emphasis on residents walking and cycling to the sites; if demand is significant enough to push the P+R site towards capacity it means there is probably enough demand to run a commercial service through the Cambridge South East sites as an alternative.

24/09/2013 8

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Table 2.4: Proposed Public Transport Infrastructure and Development

Risk (based on Infrastructure investment Site Infrastructure proposals costs and delivery)

Less than Low Cambridge Northbound bus lane on £1m South East Hills Road New Park and Ride £1m to £5m Medium Busway/ High Quality Bus Over £5m High Bourn Airfield Priority Measures

Busway between Waterbeach and Over £5m High North Cambridge New Park and Ride £1m to £5m Medium Over £5m High New Railway Station at Waterbeach Over £5m High Waterbeach Increase in Rail Service Frequency Increase size of Longstanton Park and £1m Medium Ride Busway Loop through Over £5m High Northstowe Northstowe

2.19 Fundamentally, any infrastructure required at Cambridge South East could be developed during the sites development rather than heavy investment in the early stages. Even then the level of infrastructure investment and enabling works associated with the sites is both deliverable and affordable compared to other major development sites which place high reliance on major public transport infrastructure schemes to create an attractive offer, and which carry significant cost, timing and delivery risk.

24/09/2013 9

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 3. OUTLINING AN APPROACH TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FOR CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST Roles and approach 3.1 The main role of a public transport strategy for Cambridge South East will be to provide a reliable and quality alternative to the private car, when walking and cycling are not appropriate modes of transport. 3.2 The overarching principles that will govern the Public Transport Strategy are:

 Public transport will support the role of walking and cycling as the preferred mode of transport to and from Cambridge South East.

 The strategy will be responsive to local needs. This will be achieved by evolving the existing public transport network as opposed to superimposing additional services on top of it. This will increase the opportunities to integrate the sites into the commercial network and so become more financially sustainable.

 Public Transport will be high quality and reliable, achieved by considering public transport access and priority over the private car at all stages of the development.

 The Public transport offer will be developed through partnership working with local stakeholders, including Operators and County Council officers, at all stages of the sites development. This will be encouraged through the creation of a steering group, promoting ownership of the strategy. Developing sustainable public transport options 3.3 The infographic in Figure 3.1 has been developed with these principles in mind. Figure 3.1: A phased approach to public transport development

24/09/2013 10

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

3.4 The public transport offer will be promoted through the Personalised Travel Planning programme that will be delivered as part of the Sustainable Travel Plan for the sites. As clear travel patterns emerge so the public transport offer can be developed to meet the needs in a cost effective and sensible manner. By identifying travel requirements early in the occupation process there can be an effective filtering of those able to use public transport right from the outset and to positively influence the use of bus (and rail) from ‘Day 1’ of the development. 3.5 Developing the sites from the perimeter inwards means that the initial housing will be able to access the current public transport services to the north of the site on Fulbourn Road, and to the south the Park and Ride. As needs develop there will be the opportunity to introduce courtesy minibuses/taxis to take residents direct to key work locations (e.g. Cambridge Science Park etc) and also to shuttle rail-users to alternative stations to the south such as Whittlesford Parkway. Direct links to new employment zones to the south of city would also be viable. 3.6 As the development grows options such as a ‘bus lite’ or maxi taxi service will become viable. At some point demand will be sufficient to divert existing bus services into the sites. Finally, depending on the population and travel habits there will be the opportunity to develop a dedicated commercial service for the sites, integrated with the existing network. 3.7 A similar process has been developed looking at the rail options and discussions have taken place with Greater Anglia to examine ways to enhance rail mode share (for commuter and longer distance trips) and to promote the use of sustainable modes of travel to the stations. 3.8 Whilst Cambridge station is the key main line hub offering direct accessibility to a number of key Cambridgeshire towns, Peterborough, London etc, the Cambridge South East location also offers opportunities to connect to Whittlesford Parkway and Shelford using sustainable modes. In particular the park and ride capacity at Whittlesford (combined with the opportunity to grow this provision) means that even if car travel is adopted, this is contraflow to the Cambridge car commuting patterns and optimises use of capacity at surrounding stations. 3.9 Opportunities to creatively use personalised travel planning, station travel planning and other sustainable transport interventions to uplift rail use and access to stations (cycle and go, enhanced cycle parking etc.) have been welcomed by Greater Anglia, together with early dialogue in the planning process to optimise use of rail travel. Keeping realistic expectations 3.10 A partnership approach to developing public transport will be at the heart of the public transport strategy, and with this in mind initial discussions have taken place with Stagecoach and Greater Anglia to consider existing services and opportunities. 3.11 The discussions highlighted a number of important considerations for public transport as the sites are developed, including:

 The importance of considering public transport through all phases of the development i.e. turning circles and infrastructure in the early stages of the development to allow buses to access the sites before the spine road has been completed.

24/09/2013 11

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX D: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

 Focusing on need, rather than predicting and subsidising services up front. By using funding proactively, services will evolve naturally and the chances of services becoming commercial earlier will be increased. 3.12 A phased approach to introducing the existing public transport network into the sites is considered in Figures A2 and A3 at the back of the document. Rather than being a definitive proposal these are designed to show that there are numerous options to developing access to Cambridge South East, depending on how the sites are developed, build speed, local needs and finances. It is expected that adding an additional 2 buses to one of the existing local routes would allow the core of the sites a 30 minute frequency into the City, with the commercial services at the periphery of the sites offering a higher frequency for those able to walk or cycle to the stops. All properties would be within 400 metres of a local bus stop. 3.13 Developing an evolutionary approach to public transport will give the best opportunity for the site to be deliverable, affordable and sustainable. This proposed approach to public transport development at Cambridge South East is given further support by a letter provided to the project team by Stagecoach (recognising that the location integrates well with the existing network and Stagecoach welcome the opportunity to engage early in the development planning process).

24/09/2013 12

Fig:A4: Current train frequencies and car and cycle parking facilities at stations accessible from Cambridge South East Train Frequencies Waterbeach to Shelford to Cambridge to North Cambridge to South Waterbeach to North Shelford to North South South Off Off Peak Off peak Peak Off peak Peak Off peak Peak Off peak Peak Peak peak peak Frequency 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 First Train 04:48 09:00 06:10 09:08 06:24 09:13 05:35 09:07 06:29 09:17 05:25 09:23 Last Train 19:09 00:13 18:59 22:51 08:44 00:16 08:39 23:07 18:32 00:44 18:56 22:56

Train Frequencies

Whittlesford Parkway Whittlesford Foxton to North Foxton to South to North Parkway to South Peak Off peak Peak Off peak Peak Off peak Peak Off peak

Frequency 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2

First Train 06:38 09:49 05:44 09:05 04:55 09:00 06:25 09:13 Last Train 09:17 01:05 08:35 23:24 18:30 23:00 18:58 00:40 *Timetables for Waterbeach and Foxton stations indicated peak and off-peak periods. The peak periods for other station are assumed to be at 06:00-9:00 and 16:00-19:00. Train Station Car and Cycle Parking Provision Waterbeac Whittlesford Cambridge Shelford Foxton h Parkway Car Yes (374 Yes (40 Yes (377 No No Parking spaces) spaces) spaces) Cycle Yes (913 Yes (12 Yes (8 Yes (28 No Parking spaces) spaces) spaces) spaces)

Car Travel SE Cambs - Travel 15 mins Time Distance 7,2 mi

Appendix E: Sustainable Transport and Travel Plan Assessment, covering:

‘Smarter Travel’ solutions Residential and workplace travel planning and their role in enabling development Comparative analysis of existing residential travel plans Cambridge South East and the sustainable transport solution for this location

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Commercial Estates Group

Cambridge South East

FINAL

Transport Evidence Base Appendix E: Sustainable Transport and Travel Plan Assessment Cambridge City Local Plan 2014 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan

September 2013

Produced by:

Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 32a Stoney Street The Lace Market Nottingham NG1 1LL

Tel: 0115 9886905

Contact: Jon Parker Email: [email protected] Web: www.itpworld.net

24/09/2013 i

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Document Control Sheet

Ver File name Description Prepared Reviewed Approved Date F:\1329\Reports\Sustainable_ 1.0 Transport_Assess_AE_v1-0 FINAL JH JP JW 19/09/13 FINAL.doc

Notice

This report has been prepared for Commercial Estates Group in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Integrated Transport Planning Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

24/09/2013 ii

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION

2 THE ROLE OF SMARTER TRAVEL SOLUTIONS TO ENABLE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

3 RESIDENTIAL AND WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANNING IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE

4 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT APPRAISAL

5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT APPROACH FOR CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Residential Travel Plan Measures Analysis

Table 2 Housing Developers – Travel Plan Marketing Analysis

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Mode of Travel Hierarchy

Figure 2 Mode of Travel to Work – Car (Census 2011)

Figure 3 Mode of Travel to Work - Active Travel Modes (Census 2011)

Figure TEB2 Off site Transport Infrastructure Plan – Cambridge South East

Figure TEB4 Connectivity and Integration Plan – Cambridge South East

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Housing Developers Travel Plan Marketing Analysis – Location and Data Sources

24/09/2013 1

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report covers the specific issue of sustainable transport modes and their future in enabling the continued delivery of housing and employment sites in the Greater Cambridge area. It also complements the public transport analysis and proposed strategy for the Cambridge South East sites as set out in Appendix D.

1.2 The evidence base supports the NPPF’s position on sustainable transport, promoting a ‘sustainable transport first’ approach to development and proactively supporting the use of travel demand management and behaviour change mechanisms that do not rely on major, costly infrastructure to unlock potential significant development sites.

1.3 The material presented firmly supports the development of ‘edge of Cambridge’ sites first and underpins the main transport evidence base.

1.4 The report covers the following key issues:

 The role of smarter travel solutions in unlocking development sites, particularly those where all travel modes can be properly represented including walking and cycling;

 The role of travel planning, for both residential and employment sites, to reduce the need to travel and reduce dependence on the car;

 A comparative analysis of the way in which travel plans have been developed in the Cambridge area, including a comparison of developments close to or within Cambridge with travel plans for housing schemes in ‘new settlements’;

 The proposed sustainable transport package for the Cambridge South East sites, demonstrating a robust approach to travel demand management and promotion of active travel and public transport modes.

24/09/2013 2

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

2 THE ROLE OF SMARTER TRAVEL SOLUTIONS TO ENABLE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The NPPF Context

2.1 The NPPF (paras 29-41) is explicit on the principle of promoting sustainable transport modes, and for spatial policy to deliver accessibility to and within new developments to positively support the use of public transport, walking and cycling.

2.2 Para 36 specifically notes that a key tool to facilitate uptake of sustainable travel modes is a travel plan, which if designed and implemented correctly will result in sustainable developments that offer the correct blend of travel choices. Therefore, development locations must be able to:

o accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

o give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements;

o provide access to high quality public transport facilities;

o create safe and secure layouts; and

o consider the needs of people with disabilities.

National Guidance and Best Practice

2.3 ‘Smarter choices’ have an important role in facilitating more sustainable development. The evidence base to support smarter choices implementation is extensive, and shows the role of behaviour change intervention programmes not only to reduce the traffic impact of new development, but to achieve more wide ranging reductions in car use across a wider geographic area.

2.4 The principle of ‘nil detriment’ (i.e. ensuring that development wherever possible does not have a net adverse effect on the traffic network) has already been established through the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans (para 4.51) and through Circular 02/07 on Planning and the Strategic Road Network (updated in September 2013 by DfT Circular 02/2013, with a similar focus on the important role of travel plans and demand management). Techniques such as ‘trip banking’ can allow a development to put in place interventions across a wider area to reduce existing traffic levels and therefore enable space on the network to accommodate new development.

2.5 DfT Circular 02/2013) clearly states that through the Local Plan process, ‘development should be promoted at locations that are or can be made sustainable, that allow for uptake of sustainable transport modes and support wider social and health objectives, and which support existing business sectors as well as enabling new growth’.

24/09/2013 3

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 2.6 The Highways Agency reinforces the role of the travel plan early on in the planning process, and advocates patterns of development that will support sustainable transport choice and retain capacity within the transport network.

2.7 The latest guidance is also clear that the emphasis must be on the minimisation of trip generation, and therefore locating development where the mode share is automatically in favour of sustainable transport is vital to the successful implementation of this guidance.

2.8 The guidance reinforces the use of robust travel plans to promote the use of sustainable transport modes and reiterates the value in the inclusion of existing development within the provisions of a travel plan, to free up capacity within the road network. There is a strong indication that those sites that avoid the Highways Agency network, reduce impact and connect into existing settlements will be preferable.

2.9 It is therefore against this background that the strategic development sites are assessed, and the package for Cambridge South East put forward.

24/09/2013 4

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

3 RESIDENTIAL AND WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANNING IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE

3.1 Cambridgeshire County Council are clear on the importance of travel planning as a key tool to enable growth. The Draft Transport Strategy and the adopted Local Transport Plan both provide direction and strong messaging on the importance of behaviour change tools.

3.2 Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County Council have historically been amongst the strongest advocates of sustainable transport with considerable investment in cycling, walking and public transport solutions. The Cambridgeshire Travel for Work Partnership has also been very successful in securing collaboration with major employers and ensuring the large trip attractors (such as Addenbrooke’s Hospital) have robust operational travel plans in place.

3.3 The County Council has also been proactive in delivering residential travel plan solutions and working closely with developers seeking planning permission for significant housing sites in the County.

3.4 Cambridgeshire is a location where there is generally a mature approach to travel planning by both the County and City Council, and innovation will be encouraged. However, the reality of the situation is that those developments which have advocated travel plans as a key solution to traffic impact have often not delivered on their targets and behaviour change projects mainly due to the location of these developments in the first place.

3.5 The purpose of residential and workplace travel plans is to demand manage the impact of trips to and from the specific sites, but they are not designed to ‘make the development sustainable’ if inherently the locational relationship, connectivity and travel distances to Cambridge are poor for sustainable modes of travel.

3.6 Those travel plan that are likely to survive and work well on an ongoing basis will be those focused on employers and housing development with good public transport accessibility, covering a range of service sectors (work, health, education, retail, leisure), a wide choice of routes and services, and a realistic proportion of people able to use cycling and walking for their journeys.

3.7 In order to assist the Local Plan process, we have looked carefully at a range of residential travel plans and the comparative approaches taken in Cambridge as opposed to the ‘new settlements' and have revealed a marked difference in the way in which travel planning is working within the existing urban environment compared to the standalone new settlements. We cover this in Chapter 4 below.

24/09/2013 5

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

4 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT APPRAISAL

Setting the context

4.1 Having established the policy context, and the need for a ‘pro-sustainable’ transport approach to be adopted, we have carried out an analysis based on current travel planning activity and travel plan documentation available for a range of housing sites.

4.2 The ability for travel plans and smarter travel measures to work effectively is firstly based on the availability of modal choice. Figure 1 shows the typical mode of travel hierarchy ranging from walking at the top to single occupancy car use at the bottom.

Figure 1 – Mode of Travel Hierarchy

4.3 Fundamentally, outer fringe or rural 'stand-alone' sites are less equipped to actively promote walking and cycling apart for ‘local’ internal trips within the settlement. Beyond this limit, access to Cambridge becomes limited to public transport or the car, based on distance, safety, congestion and severance factors. So, as shown in Figure 1, the top two layers of the hierarchy are already weakened when development is promoted in settlements 5-10 miles from Cambridge. Use of public transport is also eroded when it relates to only major corridor for access, as regular use of public transport is highly dependent on journey time reliability and direct accessibility, and is subject to congestion and delay on the specific corridor itself.

4.4 This is further supported by Figure 2, which shows the level of car usage for commuting across Greater Cambridge, and Figure 3 which illustrates where the ‘active travel’ modes are being used.

24/09/2013 6

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Figure 2 Census Travel to Work by Car

Figure 3 Census Travel to Work by Sustainable Modes

4.5 Therefore the ability for travel plans to have a substantial impact on mode choice is compromised within the new settlements compared to sites closer to Cambridge. To demonstrate this point we have carried out two appraisal exercises which examine the approach taken in current residential plans and the way in which housing developers in comparative Cambridgeshire locations adopt a different approach to sustainable transport promotion.

24/09/2013 7

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Evaluation of Residential Travel Plans

4.6 The first evaluation looks at the range of measures that can realistically feature within the travel plans for a range of sites across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. Table 1 clearly identifies that the menu of measures that are appropriate and deliverable in the new settlements are limited compared to those that will work in urban or urban fringe locations.

4.7 Table 1 contains an analysis of the content of residential travel plans both in ‘stand-alone’ locations and those located closer to Cambridge, including the residential travel plans proposals for the SE Cambridge sites. The reality is that the travel plans for places such as Northstowe and Waterbeach, whilst well–intentioned, cannot generate the propensity for sustainable travel use nor work as effectively with the surrounding communities to reduce reliance on the car.

Table 1: Analysis of Residential Travel Plan Content

Location ** (Clay (Clay Kneighton) Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge South East East South Northstowe Waterbeach Cross/Great Cambourne*

Travel Plan Status TED TED TED ENT BEING BEING BEING BEING PLAN IN IN PLAN IN IN PLACE IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN DEVELOPM

Typical Travel Plan Interventions Travel Plan Information Booklet for Residents Viable Travel Plan Website Viable Personalised Journey Planning advice programme Viable

Bus taster tickets / deals Viable Rail taster tickets / deals Viable Cycling tasters / events Viable Car sharing scheme promotion Viable Active Travel health campaign Viable

Promotional Strategy Promotional Rewards' based programme for residents and employees on site Viable

Community Travel events Viable Travel Plan Notice boards Viable Improving Pedestrian networks and connections to city centre/key Viable service locations

Improving Pedestrian networks and links to green space and Viable surrounding countryside

Developing a Pedestrian route map Viable Improved Pedestrian signage and navigation Viable

Strategy Strategy Corridor lighting improvements - safer walking into the city centre / Viable Pedestrian schools Developing a walking buddy scheme Viable

Viable Providing rest areas for pedestrians (benches etc.) on key routes Viable

Safer Routes to School / Education/ Nursery facilities

cli gy ng

Cy Viable Str ate Enhancing / providing Cycle Routes

24/09/2013 8

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Location ** (Clay (Clay Kneighton) Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge South East East South Northstowe Waterbeach Cross/Great Cambourne*

Travel Plan Status TED TED TED ENT BEING BEING BEING BEING PLAN IN IN PLAN IN IN PLACE IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN DEVELOPM

Typical Travel Plan Interventions Developing Cycle Route Map Viable Developing a Bike Buddy Scheme Viable Providing Secure Cycle Parking Viable Providing Pool Bicycles/Bike Hire facility Viable Discounts on Bicycles and Equipment Viable

Providing Showers and Changing Facilities at employment and Viable school locations

Cycle Network Improvements leading to Cambridge city centre Viable including 'quiet routes' network

Roll forward of the community, school and employer travel plan Viable advice programme and initiatives on an annual basis

Cycle training for adults and children available via GPs, community Viable hospital, schools Active travel health campaign Viable

Viable Replacement / maintenance of cycle parking at key offsite locations Safer Routes to School / Education facilities Viable

Viable Enhanced cycle parking at rail stations (e.g. Whittlesford Parkway)

Cycle routes to local rail stations Viable Providing Route Maps and Timetables Viable Providing Public Transport Discounts Viable

Viable Improving Access to Rail Network - shuttle buses/maxi taxi services

Viable Bus priority treatments at key junctions/routes on the Road Network Public Public

Strategy Viable Transport Transport Bus Service Extension and Improvements routed through the site Providing/ improving Bus Waiting Facilities Viable

Viable Taxibus courtesy pick up service for key employment locations Viable Taxibus courtesy pick up service for hospital locations Car sharing zones in employment locations *** Flexible Parking Scheme ***

Considerate Drivers Training Scheme/ Freight Partnership (for *** employment activities) Construction Travel Planning Viable Developing a Car Sharing Scheme *** On site

car Providing a Car Club/Car pooling club ***

Car/Vehicle Management Strategy Strategy Management Car/Vehicle Promoting Car Sharing

Flexi-Working *** ce gy Work Work Practi Strate Tele-Working and Home Working ***

24/09/2013 9

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Location ** (Clay (Clay Kneighton) Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge South East East South Northstowe Waterbeach Cross/Great Cambourne*

Travel Plan Status TED TED TED ENT BEING BEING BEING BEING PLAN IN IN PLAN IN IN PLACE IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN IMPLEMEN DEVELOPM

Typical Travel Plan Interventions Tele-Conferencing *** Financial Incentives *** Providing staff changing/washing facilities *** Viable

Apply travel plan measures to wider geographic area

Viable Residential PTP programmes for surrounding housing areas

Viable Workplace PTP programmes for surrounding employment areas Promotions strategy Viable

Site specific travel plan support for key trip attractors in hinterland Viable area

Area Wide Travel Planning Planning Travel Wide Area Offering initiatives to wider catchment (e.g., car club) Viable Enhanced bus services for surrounding area Viable

Regular travel plan surveys (at least bi-annual) Viable Travel Plan management group Viable Travel plan coordinator for site Viable Travel plan coordination with surrounding area Viable Monitoring Monitoring Viable Management and and Management Regular progress and reporting Key

Strong emphasis within the site residential travel plan/viable within the RTP Some mention of the initiative/measure, but with little detail/evidence Initiative not demonstrated or capable of being implemented *Cambourne Travel Plan website (www.cambournetravelplan.com) was included in the evaluation **The Waterbeach Travel Plan was compiled for a development of 60 dwellings in total *** Dependent on nature of ‘end’ developers and their approach but a clear framework is capable of being specified and monitored through the planning process.

Evaluation of Travel Marketing in New Housing Developments

4.8 The second evaluation (Table 2) examines a range of housing sites in different locations (Cambourne and Cambridge) and the approach to marketing and promoting the locations for new residents. This is a ‘reality check’ on whether the sustainable transport aspects of the site are being recognised and actively promoted, or whether the locational choices of purchasers are being influenced by other messages. The ‘RAG’ assessment evaluated websites, brochures and other collateral as a measure of the attention being given to travel planning by developers and their relative effectiveness. Annex A contains information on the locations of the selected residential schemes and the sources of the audited material.

24/09/2013 10

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Table 2: Analysis of Marketing and Promotional Material

Key to RAG Rating Promotes sustainable transport by providing information about local bus services, cycle routes and footpaths. Neutral, there is no transport link information provided. Aggressively, positively promotes car use by providing information about links to closest motorways. Gives no information about local sustainable transport.

Cambridgeshire Housing Developer Transport Promotion Evaluation

Name of the Number of Location Developer Key Comments Development Houses The website and the brochure has no transport based Bovis The Green 90 information. The brochures give no information about sustainable transport Churchill Gardens 110 i.e. buses, cycling (cycling is only mentioned in a leisure context). It is mentioned that the site is connected with A428 which Cambourne leads to A14, M11, M15 and other routes. Taylor Wimpey Newton Grange 87 Also, the brochure mentions the nearby Cambridge, St. Neots and Royston trains stations that provide services to London Liverpool Street or King's Cross. Moreover, it is stated that Cambridge Airport is just 30 minutes Dukes Park 51 away and Stansted Airport can be reached in 50 minutes by rail (based on National Rail Enquiries data).

The brochure suggests that the site is well-connected by cycle routes. Guided bus and train station are mentioned as well, Skanska Seven Acres 77 supported by a connectivity map. Car travel is visually presented as a last option in the brochure, with access to M11.

The developer emphasises the importance of cycling as part of Cambridge's commitment to the environment and states that Berkeley Cambridge Riverside 159 the site is designed with the same principles in mind. It is stated that the secure bike racks and direct access to the Cambridge Common will ensure driving is unnecessary. City The description of the development indicates that easily Abode 197 accessible cycle stores and footpaths in the site encourage greener modes of transport. There is no car travel information.

Countryside The transport link description in the site's website provides Properties extensive information about the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus, good cycle routes and footpaths. Travel by car is mentioned as Novo 308 well. However, Abode promotes pay-as-you-go car club, Zipcar, which helps to reduce individual's expenditure and carbon footprint.

4.9 The evaluation shows that the Cambridge sites perform much better in their recognition and active marketing of travel choices but in contrast the Cambourne site places much more emphasis on the use of the private car and accessibility to the primary road network. We conclude therefore that not only is the scope for travel planning impact fundamentally weaker in the ‘new settlements’ due to the limited modal choice available, but in addition the biased messaging to new inhabitants compounds this issue.

4.10 Significantly, the Cambourne developments promote ‘easy car access’ as a key selling point, with some mention of the relationship with St Neot's station on the East Coast main line. However, the Great Kneighton scheme, which is south of Addenbrookes and slightly further away from the city centre compared to the Cambridge South East location, clearly promotes a ‘sustainable travel first’ ethos and is optimising the scope to connect into the

24/09/2013 11

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT existing infrastructure for active travel and public transport use. The argument that the ‘stand-alone’ sites tend to reach a much lower threshold for sustainable travel use is also borne out by the independent ‘Cambourne Lessons Learnt’ report (see Appendix C).

Understanding the true scope for impact of smarter travel options

4.11 We consider it is vital that the true capacity of smarter travel interventions is recognised in the prioritisation of spatial priorities across both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. In line with the current DfT and DCLG thinking on the role of sustainable transport in enabling new development, it is essential that a ‘blanket’ approach is not taken to travel planning and smarter travel interventions. Instead, the relative ability for sustainable transport interventions to deliver results in specific locations must be recognised and taken into consideration when prioritising sites.

4.12 The ‘new settlement’ approach is focusing development in locations where there is already a much higher use of the car, and the capacity to offer the full range of sustainable modes is compromised. There is scope for some mitigation through travel planning, but as evidenced through the Cambourne case study (Appendix C) and our own recent research, the capacity for behaviour change measures to work effectively are capped because of the location and the limited range of options available. Cambridge and its urban fringe sites are able to support a sustainable transport mode split of nearly double that of rural development areas.

4.13 Many of the interventions that lend themselves naturally to urban extensions (i.e. area wide travel planning, retrofitting residential travel schemes to existing households) are simply not viable for the stand-alone developments, particularly Bourn Airfield (where there is no existing population to work with) and Northstowe (where the proportionate size of Longstanton will have limited impact).

4.14 In contrast, locations such as Cambridge South East can support this type of intervention and capitalise on the nearby established residential areas and employment centres. Evidence from national best practice shows that this type of area wide management approach is workable and sustainable in urban extension locations and also tested robustly at public inquiry. Carlisle (South Morton), Haywards Heath (Bolnore Village), Uckfield (three urban extensions) and Shrewsbury (LDF sequential site tests) are all locations where the wider benefits of travel planning have been tested and evaluated so there can be complete confidence in this type of approach.

4.15 On this basis we now demonstrate that sequentially the Cambridge South East sites can support a wider range of sustainable travel initiatives, with the scope for far greater impact than the alternative sites.

24/09/2013 12

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

5 SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL APPROACH FOR CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

Linkage to other Strategies

5.1 The travel planning and behaviour change approach to Cambridge South East is based on the implementation of the public transport strategy (Appendix D) and pedestrian/cycling linkages (as set out on the concept plan and Figure 2 of the Transport Evidence Base).

5.2 The level of connectivity of the existing bus service network, the cycleability of the surrounding area, the linkage to Cambridge Rail Station and the ability to access Cherry Hinton District Centre, Addenbrookes and other key locations by sustainable modes means that the travel planning approach has a firm foundation on which to build in the first place.

5.3 The modest infrastructure investments means that the necessary accessibility improvements and connections could be provided early in the planning process, meaning that both residents and workers have a real opportunity to adopt sustainable travel patterns from ‘Day 1’ of occupation.

5.4 The main transport evidence base highlights the options for accessing Whittlesford Parkway and other key public transport facilities, and Appendix F highlights the infrastructure package that can be assembled with relative ease and low cost to enable the sites to become well integrated with the surrounding area.

Maximising Travel Behaviour Change

5.5 A unique feature of the Cambridge South East sites is the ability to use residential and workplace personalised travel planning (PTP) to optimise the ‘trip capacity’ of Cherry Hinton / Queen Ediths ward and surrounding areas. Linked to the concept of 'trip banking’, the role of PTP programmes is to reduce the car mode share of existing communities close to new development and to influence the locational and travel choices of new residents as they move in. This can be further supplemented by changes in travel behaviour at workplaces in the area including the Peterhouse Technology Park. The advantage of these programmes is that they can be introduced in parallel or ahead of new occupations so the reductions in traffic pressure on the road network are achieved alongside new development.

5.6 Figure 4 in the Transport Evidence Base shows the geographic area that is recommended for household and workplace based PTP programmes, together with a clear indication of how the connectivity between the sites and existing urban area can be strengthened. From our Census analysis we know there is opportunity to alter travel behaviour of people living in the existing Cherry Hinton/Queen Edith’s residential area to create further capacity on the network. We also know from evidence from national smarter choices programmes and from other residential travel planning exercises that there is scope to reduce the neighbouring community mode share even further.

24/09/2013 13

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

5.7 No other site has that relationship or the capacity to deliver this level of travel behaviour change. These measures are also lower unit cost and can give significant mode share returns (typically between 9% – 14% reduction in car use).

Use of a Flexible Travel Planning Package

5.8 Table 1, as well as setting out the travel plan measures that are covered in other residential developments, also sets out the overall travel planning package for the Cambridge SE sites and the surrounding area. This sets out a comprehensive range of measures and impacts that we would expect to see from a site in this location.

5.9 The travel planning package is particularly robust because:

 It can deal with a wider variety of trip purposes (commuting, education, leisure, shopping etc.).

 It can be applied to both ‘existing’ and ‘new’ residents and workers over a wide geographic area.

 It can rely on a full package of sustainable choices where the infrastructure and service base is already in place.

 It can rely on local operators that see the immediate advantages of this type of approach and want to be part of its success.

 It can start to work ‘immediately' using a very flexible range of tools than can be altered according to local need and market trends.

5.10 Therefore, in comparison with other proposed development areas that have put forward their travel plan strategies, often based heavily on the precept that there will be a generous proportion of ‘internal trips’, instead we have the opportunity to deliver a much more flexible and implementable travel plan solution for Cambridge SE. It is also uniquely the only location that can truly capitalise on the ‘non-infrastructure' solutions in this manner.

5.11 In summary, the Cambridge SE location is able to offer a greater range of sustainable transport benefits to the surrounding area, creating further ‘headroom’ capacity on the network through tools such as area-wide travel plans where the sustainable travel benefits are offered to a wider population. The sites can generate significant mode shift to sustainable modes through cost-efficient travel behaviour interventions and only require modest infrastructure improvements. None of the proposed rural development areas have this capacity to alter travel behaviour in this way and cannot compete with the ‘sustainable transport first’ approach which is not only viable but deliverable in urban fringe locations such as Cambridge South East.

24/09/2013 14

CAMBRIDGESOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT – ANNEX A ANNEX A: CAMBOURNE HOUSING SITES - TRAVEL PLAN MARKETING ANALYSIS

Name of Information Source used for Analysis Development Website, http://www.bovishomes.co.uk/new-homes-at-cambourne/the- The Green, Bovis green/ Churchill Gardens, Website and brochure, Taylor Wimpey http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+anglia/churchill+gardens/ Dukes Park, Taylor Website and brochure, Wimpey http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+anglia/dukespark/ Newton Grange, Website and brochure, Taylor Wimpey http://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/newhomes/east+anglia/newtongrange/

13/09/2013 1

CAMBRIDGESOUTH EAST APPENDIX E: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT – ANNEX A CAMBRIDGE HOUSING SITES - TRAVEL PLAN MARKETING ANALYSIS

Name of Information Source used for Analysis Development Novo, Countryside Website, http://www.novocambridge.com/ Properties Abode, Countryside Website, http://www.abodecambridge.co.uk/ Properties Website and brochure, Seven Acres, Skanska http://homes.skanska.co.uk/Our-new-homes/Seven-Acres/ Website and brochure, Cambridge Riverside, http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/property- Berkeley developers/berkeley/developments/cambridge-riverside

13/09/2013 2

Appendix F: Traffic Management and Infrastructure Assessment, covering:

Detailed evidence base for infrastructure requirements of alternative sites The infrastructure needed to connect Cambridge South East to Cambridge

Cambridge South East

Traffic Management and Infrastructure Assessment

17th September 2013

CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

COMMERCIAL ESTATES GROUP

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

Report by: Tom Murphy

Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers Suite E8, Joseph’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB

Ref: 12-167-005-01

Date: September 2013

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 RISKS TO THE DELIVERY OF MAJOR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIC SITES 6

3.0 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE POTENTIALLY REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AT CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST 17

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 24

APPENDICES

Appendix BGH1 Transport Infrastructure Cost Estimates.

Appendix BGH2 Network Rail’s GRIP Process.

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This note provides an initial appraisal of the cost and deliverability timeframes of the transport infrastructure identified in the Draft Transport Strategy (DTS) for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire prepared by Cambridgeshire County Council as being required to support development of strategic sites at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. It identifies major funding and programme risks to the delivery of this transport infrastructure in the context of the draft strategic allocations in the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City Local Plans. The note also considers and appraises the transport infrastructure potentially required for some 3,000 to 4,000 dwellings at Cambridge South East sites in comparison with the draft strategic site allocations.

1.2 The Draft Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire identifies the planned housing numbers at the three alternative strategic sites of Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach:

• Bourn Airfield: 3,500 homes of which 1,500 are likely to have been built by 2031 (Page 5-21 of the Draft Transport Strategy). The first housing occupations at Bourn Airfield are scheduled to be in 2022 (Chapter 3, Page 11, South Cambridgeshire District Council - Proposed Submission Local Plan). • Northstowe: 9,500 homes (Page 5-24 of the Draft Transport Strategy). • Waterbeach: 8,000 to 9,000 homes of which 1,400 are likely to have been built by 2031 (Page 5-7 of the Draft Transport Strategy).

1.3 The DTS also identifies the transport infrastructure that is required to support development at these locations and associated timescales for delivery – categorised as short, medium and long term. However, the DTS provides limited detail on the evidence used to identify these proposals and on the feasibility of the schemes in terms of cost and deliverability.

Bourn Airfield 1.4 The transport infrastructure requirements for Bourn Airfield are presented in Page 5-22 of the Draft Transport Strategy and are summarised in Table 1.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Table 1: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Bourn Airfield

Category Description Timescale

Measures to mitigate traffic impact on the A428/ A1303 and Highways Medium/Long A428/ A1198 junctions.

Measures to mitigate traffic impact on surrounding villages and Highways Medium/Long roads at Bourn, Caldecote, Toft, Comberton and Barton.

Segregated bus links from the A428 through the West Public Cambourne site, linking to Great Cambourne by the Cambourne Medium/Long Transport Business Park and School Lane Lower Cambourne. A segregated bus link from Cambourne to Bourn Airfield, and on Public through the development to the junction of St. Neots Road with Medium/ Long Transport Highfields Road. Any measures necessary to ensure that a bus journey between Public Highfields and the junction of the A428 and the A1303 is direct Medium/ Long Transport and unaffected by any congestion suffered by general traffic. High quality segregated bus priority measures on the A1303 Public between its junction with the A428 and Queen’s Road, Short/ Medium Transport Cambridge. A Park and Ride site accessed from the A428, to take advantage Public of the bus priority measures on the A1303 St. Neots Road Medium/ Long Transport between the A428 and the M11. Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to west Pedestrian Cambridge, Papworth Everard, Highfields, Hardwick, Caxton, Short/ Medium and Cycle Bourn, Caldecote, Comberton, Bar Hill and Dry Drayton.

Smarter A Smarter Choices package including residential, school and Medium/ Long Choices workplace travel planning.

1.5 The South Cambridgeshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan (Chapter 3, Page 12) also identifies a need for the following:

• Convenient vehicle access, with at least two separate access points to the north-west and north-east of the site. • Preventing vehicle access to the Broadway (except for buses and cyclists). • A network of attractive, safe and convenient walking and cycling routes linking homes to public transport and the main areas of activity such as the village centre, schools and employment areas.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Northstowe 1.6 The transport infrastructure requirements identified for Northstowe are presented in Page 5-25 of the Draft Transport Strategy and are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Northstowe

Category Description Timescale

Highways Oakington Bypass Medium

Highways Northstowe Access Works Medium

Public Busway loop through Northstowe Medium Transport

Public Expansion of Longstanton Park and Ride Medium Transport

1.7 The Draft Transport Strategy also recognises the Highways Agency’s proposals to improve the A14 trunk road – although this scheme falls outside of the jurisdiction of the local authorities (Page 5-25 and 5-26 of the Draft Transport Strategy).

1.8 The DTS lacks detail regarding the pedestrian and cycle connections that are required to deliver development at Northstowe.

Waterbeach 1.9 The transport infrastructure requirements identified for Waterbeach are presented in Page 5-8 of the Draft Transport Strategy and are summarised in Table 3.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Table 3: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Waterbeach

Category Description Timescale

Additional capacity for general traffic between the northernmost Highways access to the new town and the Milton Interchange of the A10 Long with the A14 trunk road.

Additional capacity at the Milton Interchange for movements Highways Long between the A10 and A14.

Delivery or funding of any measures required to mitigate the Highways Long traffic impact on Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Milton and Landbeach.

Public A relocated Waterbeach train station. Long Transport

A busway link from the train station and town centre to north Public Cambridge including a fully segregated crossing of the A14 trunk Long Transport road.

Public A Park and Ride site on the A10 to intercept traffic from the north Long Transport of Waterbeach, served by the new busway link to Cambridge.

Smarter A Smarter Choices package including residential, school and Long Choices workplace travel planning.

1.10 The Draft Transport Strategy also identifies for improvements to the length of the platforms at the existing Waterbeach train station (Page 5-8) to accommodate 10 and 12 carriage trains.

1.11 The DTS lacks detail regarding the pedestrian and cycle connections that are required to deliver development at Waterbeach.

1.12 The South Cambridgeshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan (Chapter 3, Pages 9 and 10) also identifies a need for the following:

• A primary vehicle access route to the A10. • Review the access arrangements to Denny Abbey. • Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to north Cambridge, surrounding villages and nearby existing facilities such as Cambridge Research Park. • A network of attractive, direct, safe and convenient walking and cycling routes linking homes to public transport and the main areas of activity such as the town centre, schools and employment areas.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

1.13 The DTS clearly identifies the requirement for significant major infrastructure to deliver development at the draft strategic sites allocations at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. The identified transport infrastructure includes major highway improvements, a new train station, new Park and Ride sites and new segregated busways. In the absence of reported feasibility work in the DTS on the identified infrastructure, the next section identifies and describes the major funding and programme risks to the delivery of such transport infrastructure.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

2.0 RISKS TO THE DELIVERY OF MAJOR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIC SITES

2.1 The main risks to the delivery of transport infrastructure required to support development at alternative strategic sites can be categorised as follows:

• Funding risks. It is widely recognised that funding for major transport infrastructure projects is going to be in short supply over the next few decades. Major financial investment is required to unlock development at alternative strategic sites. There is currently considerable uncertainty regarding the costs of delivering the transport infrastructure schemes that have been identified in the DTS. The DTS provides no information on the costs for delivering these types of transport infrastructure projects. • Land Ownership risks (associated with Statutory Orders). The scale of many of the identified transport infrastructure projects is such that there will be a need to acquire third party land to enable delivery. This has the potential to significantly delay project programmes. • Programme risks. Many of the major transport infrastructure projects are large scale and complex and will not be delivered in the short term. The DTS provides no detailed descriptions, drawings or delivery programmes for these schemes. A considerable amount of technical work therefore needs to be undertaken to develop these schemes in more detail to provide a degree of certainty over their deliverability. On this basis it must be considered that there is currently a very high level of risk to delivery programmes for these major infrastructure projects.

2.2 The three categories of risk are considered in more detail below for each transport infrastructure scheme on a site by site basis.

2.3 Infrastructure cost estimates have been undertaken using a range of sources including local case studies for similar transport infrastructure schemes in Cambridge, information from the Highways Agency, standard costs for delivering transport infrastructure identified in the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan for 2011 – 2016 and standard construction rates. A summary of the method adopted to develop the infrastructure cost estimates is provided in Appendix BGH1 – together with the preliminary cost estimates and underlying assumptions used.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Bourn Airfield Table 4: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Bourn Airfield Category Description Cost Range

Measures to mitigate traffic impact on the A428/ A1303 and Highways £2m to £2.88m A428/ A1198 junctions.

Measures to mitigate traffic impact on surrounding villages and Highways £1m to £2m roads at Bourn, Caldecote, Toft, Comberton and Barton.

Convenient vehicle access, with at least two separate access Highways1 £400k to £1m points to the north west and north east of the site.

Preventing vehicle access to the Broadway (except for buses and Highways1 £105k to £210k cyclists).

Segregated bus links from the A428 through the West Cambourne Public site, linking to Great Cambourne by the Cambourne Business Park £3m to £5m Transport and School Lane Lower Cambourne. A segregated bus link from Cambourne to Bourn Airfield, and on Public through the development to the junction of St. Neots Road with £4.5m to £7.5m Transport Highfields Road. Any measures necessary to ensure that a bus journey between Public Highfields and the junction of the A428 and the A1303 is direct £1m to £1.44m Transport and unaffected by any congestion suffered by general traffic. High quality segregated bus priority measures on the A1303 Public between its junction with the A428 and Queen’s Road, £7.5m to £12.5m Transport Cambridge. A Park and Ride site accessed from the A428, to take advantage of Public the bus priority measures on the A1303 St. Neots Road between £3.9m to £5.62m Transport the A428 and the M11. Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to west Pedestrian Cambridge, Papworth Everard, Highfields, Hardwick, Caxton, £1.5m to £2.0m and Cycle Bourn, Caldecote, Comberton, Bar Hill and Dry Drayton. A network of attractive, safe and convenient walking and cycling Pedestrian routes linking homes to public transport and the main areas of £250k to £360k and Cycle1 activity such as the village centre, schools and employment areas.

TOTAL £25m to £40m

1 Taken from South Cambridgeshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan 2 Note costs exclude the A428 Caxton Gibbet to Black Cat improvement scheme estimated at £240m in 2007

Delivering Public Transport Infrastructure 2.4 In terms of timescales for implementing key public transport infrastructure identified to support development at Bourn Airfield it should be noted that:

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

• Park and Ride: South Cambridgeshire District Council granted planning approval for a 1,000 space Park and Ride site at Babraham Road in September 1997 (Ref: S/1070/96/F). The Park and Ride site opened in August 1999. The timescale between planning approval and opening was around 2 years. Allowing 2 to 3 years to secure funding, work through the design stage, prepare a planning application and deal with post- application negotiations it can be considered that delivery of the Park and Ride site that is required to support development at Bourn Airfield will take a minimum of 3 to 4 years. • Segregated Busway: Construction of the 25 km Cambridge Guided Busway took around 4.5 years (between March 2007 and August 2011). The average rate of construction was 5.5 km per year. The DTS identifies a need for high quality segregated bus priority measures on the A1303 between its junction with the A428 and Queens Road, Cambridge. This section of segregated busway will be around 5 km long and on the basis of average construction rates for the Cambridge Guided Busway project could take around 1 year to construct. Based on a 2 year period to secure funding and work through the planning and design stage – the overall delivery timeframe for the 5 km stretch of busway is estimated to be a minimum of 5 years. It should be noted that the existing Cambridge Guided Busway benefits from running on a disused railway line for a significant section of the route. There is no such advantage for buses along the A428/ A1303 corridor which may increase the planning and design stage for delivery of a segregated busway to support development at Bourn Airfield.

Delivering Highways Infrastructure 2.5 This section reviews the timescales for delivering major highway infrastructure associated with the existing Cambourne development adjacent to Bourn Airfield. This review demonstrates that there will be significant lead in times relating to the delivery of major highway infrastructure to support development at Bourn Airfield.

2.6 Cambridgeshire County Council granted outline planning permission for the 3,000 dwelling development at Cambourne in April 1994 (ref: S/1371/92/0). The Section 106 Agreement dated 20th April 1994 identified the following highways schemes that were to be delivered:

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

• Prior to the commencement of development:

• Provide for site access from the A45 (now called A428). • Construction of a grade separated access junction. • Dualling of approximately 2 km of road across the site frontage.

• Prior to the completion of the 300th dwelling - construction of a single carriageway by-pass for Caxton.

2.7 A report by the Chartered Institute for Housing on behalf of South Cambridgeshire District Council entitled “Cambourne – A Sustainable Community?” (November 2005) states that in November 1996 the Masterplan and design guide for the development was approved. By September 1997 the initial reserved matter application for infrastructure was approved and by June 1998 work had started on site. The first residents moved in during August 1999. It can be seen that the first occupation took place 5 years after outline planning permission was granted. The Caxton by-pass was completed in December 2001.

2.8 Based on the key dates identified above – planning consent in 1994 and the first dwelling in 1999, before which significant highway infrastructure was required to have been delivered, it can be considered that there will be a similar time lag between the granting of planning consent and the delivery of highway infrastructure required to facilitate development that is reliant upon major highways infrastructure.

Northstowe 2.9 An outline planning application for the first phase of development at Northstowe was submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council in February 2012 (Ref: S/0388/12/OL). The Phase 1 development comprises 1,500 dwellings, a primary school for 630 pupils, a mixed use local centre including 1,500 m² of retail, around 5 hectares of employment, a sports hub, open space and allotments (Source: Transport Assessment, Northstowe - Phase 1 Development, WSP, 14th February 2012).

2.10 The Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee produced a report on 27th February 2012 which recommended planning permission for the Phase 1 development should be granted subject to a number of planning conditions. These conditions are set out in the Committee Report under points 16 to 23 which relate mainly to the delivery of non-infrastructure items. The following bullet points summarise the planning conditions that are relevant to the delivery of transport infrastructure required to support the Phase 1 development at Northstowe:

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

• Point 16: No development shall commence until a scheme detailing the proposed improvement works for the B1050, including the form of the site access junction arrangements, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • Point 19: Each reserved matters application shall include a scheme detailing the walking and cycling routes connecting that phase of development to Longstanton Village, to the B1050 and to the Longstanton Park and Ride site, and onsite community facilities and the local centre, and the phase of development shall not commence until the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • Point 20: No development shall commence until a scheme detailing the proposed busway though the development site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2.11 Cambridge County Council has also identified a number of S106 planning obligations relating to the Phase 1 development. These requirements are set out in Appendix B to the Committee Report and are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Northstowe Phase 1 – Key Planning Requirements from Cambridge County Council

Description Obligation Triggers (as of 8th March 2013)

10-15% of total as initial payment on 1st occupation and then subsequent phased Cambridge Guided Busway £2,380,500 payments on 700 occupations and 1,400 occupations. Phased payments on first occupation and annually Public Transport £1,400,000 thereafter for 5 years. £60k capital and £10k revenue payable upon signing of S106 Agreement. Transport Monitoring £930,000 £10,000 revenue payments annually for 6 years. Measures (including A14) Phased capital payments on 100th, 1,000th and 1,400th occupation. Initial payment of £50,000 on commencement of earth works and phased contributions thereafter Off-site pedestrian/ cycle link £932,000 based either on award of contract and 3 months thereafter or on the number of occupations.

Construction Management £100,000 Payment prior to commencement of works.

Submission of travel plans prior to Travel Plans £175,000 commencement of development parcels with implementation prior to first occupation.

Total £5,917,500

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

2.12 Table 5 shows that the financial contributions required by Cambridgeshire County Council towards transport infrastructure and monitoring for the Phase 1 development are in the order of £6 million (or approximately £4,000 per dwelling).

2.13 Table 6 identifies the estimated costs to deliver the transport infrastructure schemes that are required to support the full development proposal at Northstowe.

Table 6 Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Northstowe Category Description Cost Range

Highways Oakington Bypass £10m to £15m

Highways Northstowe Access Works £4m to £6m

Highways A14 improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton £1.5bn

Public Busway loop through Northstowe £6m to £10m Transport

Public Expansion of Longstanton Park and Ride £1.5m to £2.16m Transport

TOTAL (excluding the A14 improvement scheme) £23m to £35m

Delivering Highways Infrastructure 2.14 In relation to the A14 improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton, Page 8 of the recent Highways Agency publication ‘Public Consultation on Route Options’ states that:

“The Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 notes that delivery of the joint development strategy for Cambridgeshire is threatened by congestion on the A14”

2.15 It also states that:

“Major developments, such as the new 10,000 home village at Northstowe, the Alconbury Enterprise Zone, and expansion on the northern and eastern fringes of Cambridge, all depend on an improved A14”.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

2.16 Given the Highways Agency’s position it must be considered likely that development at Northstowe beyond Phase 1, i.e. beyond 1,500 dwellings, will trigger a need for the A14 improvement scheme.

2.17 Technical Appendix B of the Transport Evidence Base provides more detail on the programme risks associated with delivery of the A14 improvement scheme – which has the potential to significantly push back the delivery of housing to late in the plan period.

Waterbeach 2.18 Table 7 identifies the estimated costs to deliver the transport infrastructure schemes that are required to support the development Waterbeach.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Table 7: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Waterbeach Category Description Cost Range

Additional capacity for general traffic between the northernmost £13.0m to Highways access to the new town and the Milton Interchange of the A10 £19.5m with the A14 trunk road. Additional capacity at the Milton Interchange for movements Highways £2m to £2.88m between the A10 and A14.

Delivery or funding of any measures required to mitigate the Highways £1m to £1.44m traffic impact on Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Milton and Landbeach.

Highways1 Primary vehicle access to the A10. £2m to £3m

Highways1 Review the access arrangements to Denny Abbey. £100k to £144k

Public A relocated Waterbeach train station. £25m to £37.4m Transport A busway link from the train station and town centre to north Public Cambridge including a fully segregated crossing of the A14 trunk £15m to £25m Transport road. Public A Park and Ride site on the A10 to intercept traffic from the north £3.9m to £5.62m Transport of Waterbeach, served by the new busway link to Cambridge. Walking Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to north and Cambridge, surrounding villages and nearby existing facilities such £1.5m to £2.0m Cycling1 as Cambridge Research Park. A network of attractive, direct, safe and convenient walking and Walking cycling routes linking homes to public transport and the main and £250k to £360k areas of activity such as the town centre, schools and employment Cycling1 areas.

TOTAL £65m to £97m

1 Taken from South Cambridgeshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan

Delivering Highways Infrastructure 2.19 Traffic flows on the A14 through the A14/ A10 Milton Interchange are in the order of 60,000 vehicles per day (see Figure 1 of main Transport Evidence Base). The DTS recognises that congestion on the A10 is already severe (page 5-7). On this basis it must be considered likely that an early trigger for development at Waterbeach will be required for capacity and safety improvements to the A10 corridor and the Milton Interchange.

Delivering Public Transport Infrastructure 2.20 In terms of the new train station that has been identified to support development at Waterbeach – expected programmes to deliver approved stations at Kirkstall

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Forge and Apperley Bridge in West Yorkshire suggest the 8 stage Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process to deliver a train station typically takes around 8 years. A more detailed description of Network Rail’s GRIP process to deliver a train station is provided in Appendix 2. For financial and other planning purposes, Network Rail works within 5 year Control Periods. The current Control Period finishes in 2014. There is no reference to a new train station at Waterbeach in Network Rail’s current Control Period. Furthermore there is no reference to capacity enhancements or a new station at Waterbeach in Network Rails publication ‘Anglia Route –Summary Business Plan’ that sets out forecasts of long term activity and expenditure at route level for control period 5 that covers the period 2014 to 2019. It can therefore be concluded that any new proposed railway station at Waterbeach could only be feasibly delivered at the end of the plan period and at this stage there is little certainty over its feasibility given the apparent absence of feasibility work.

2.21 The proposed station at Chesterton, which will serve Cambridge Science Park once constructed, is not a recent proposal and has been part of Network Rail’s plans for over a decade. The commentary below underlines the significant lead in times for the planning, design and construction phase of train stations – using Chesterton train station as a local example based in Cambridge. The bullet point summary provided below is sourced from documents dating back over 10 years:

• 2001: Proposals for Chesterton Station were included in the first Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan of 2001. • 2003: Section 2 of Network Rail’s “2003 Route Plans” stated that Network Rail was “working closely with the County Council and the SRA to take this project forward” (Page 168). • 2005: Network Rail’s “2005 Management Plan” identified a potential expected year of completion for Chesterton train station in 2008/ 2009. There has clearly been a significant slip to the year of completion that was expected at that time. • 2006: Figure 18 of Network Rail’s “Route Plans 2006 - Route 5 West Anglia” acknowledged that the station was “under consideration”. • 2006: Proposals for Chesterton Station were included in the second Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan of 2006 (Source: Paragraph 2.1, “Chesterton Station Rail Franchises” note, 9th July 2010). • 2006: A Major Scheme Business Case for Chesterton Station was submitted to the DfT (Source: Paragraph 2.1, “Chesterton Station Rail Franchises” note, 9th July 2010). • 2007: Network Rail’s “Route Plans 2007 - Route 5 West Anglia” dated March 2007 shows that the proposed railway station at Chesterton was

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

still “under consideration” and had reached the pre-feasibility stage (GRIP Stage 2 of 8) (Figure 18 on Page 15). • 2008: The East of England Regional Assembly, through the Regional Transport Forum, advised DfT of its priorities for the funding of major transport schemes in the period to 2018/2019. The note from Cambridgeshire County Council states that under this prioritisation, Chesterton Station would be assigned funding from the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) to allow construction from 2012/2013 and station opening in 2015/2016 (Source: Paragraph 2.2, “Chesterton Station Rail Franchises” note, 9th July 2010). • 2009: The 2006 Major Scheme Business Case was updated and re- submitted in 2009 as part of Cambridgeshire County Council’s bid for funding from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). • 2009: Page 18 of Network Rail’s “Route Plans 2009 West Anglia” states that a station at Chesterton was still being “considered”. • 2010: The note “Chesterton Station and Rail Franchises” from the Service Director of Growth and Infrastructure at Cambridge County Council, dated 9th July 2010, acknowledged that “The DfT and Network Rail have indicated that they consider Chesterton Station to be between GRIP 2 and 3 and that at least GRIP 3 would be required before a decision on programme entry could be made” (paragraph 4.4). At this stage the new station was estimated to cost £22.6 million (paragraph 2.6). Note: The current scheme cost estimate is £26 million. • 2013: The recent and current timescales and key dates for delivery of Chesterton Station as presented on Cambridgeshire County Council’s website are summarised below:

• November 2012 – Public Consultation. • Early 2013: Franchise Negotiations with Department for Transport. • Summer 2013: Planning Application submitted. • Autumn 2012 to Summer 2013 – Outline design. • Autumn 2013 to Planning Application determined. • Autumn 2013 to Spring 2014 – Detailed design. • Summer 2014 – Earliest possible time for start of construction. • Winter 2015/2016 – Earliest possible time for scheme opening.

2.22 The analysis provided above shows that announcements by Cambridgeshire County Council regarding the delivery of Chesterton Station do not seem to correlate with announcements from Network Rail in terms of timing and process.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

2.23 The bullet point summary also shows that plans for a new train station at Chesterton date back to at least 2001. The expected opening year is currently 2015/ 2016. On this basis it can be considered that there will be a significant lead in time for a new station to support development at Waterbeach. Using the proposed train station at Chesterton as a case study it can be considered that a new train station at Waterbeach could take at least 15 years to deliver – with an earliest possible opening year of 2028.

Summary 2.24 A summary of transport infrastructure costs for development at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach is provided in Table 8. It should be noted that the summary table excludes the £1.5 billion A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement scheme.

Table 8: Summary of Transport Infrastructure Cost Estimates for Alternative Strategic Sites

Site Cost Range

Bourn Airfield £25m to £40m

Northstowe (excludes infrastructure costs for Phase 1 and £23m to £35m A14 improvement scheme¹)

Waterbeach £65m to £97m

1 A14 scheme estimated to cost £1.5 billion

2.25 This section has identified major funding and programme risks to the delivery of the transport infrastructure to support development at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach in the context of the draft strategic allocations in the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City Local Plans.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

3.0 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO POTENTIALLY FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT AT CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST

3.1 This section demonstrates that the scale of capital investment in transport infrastructure potentially required to deliver development at Cambridge South East is significantly less than that associated with alternative strategic sites at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. The transport infrastructure that has been identified as an opportunity to facilitate development at Cambridge South East can also be delivered over a much shorter time frame compared to the alternative strategic sites – enabling housing to be delivered earlier in the plan period.

3.2 This section describes the transport infrastructure schemes already committed that will enhance the existing excellent sustainable transport linkages around Cambridge South East. It then considers and appraises the transport infrastructure potentially required for some 3,000 to 4,000 dwellings at Cambridge South East.

Committed Transport Infrastructure 3.3 The package of committed improvements to existing cycle infrastructure will provide higher quality linkages to nearby destinations in the local area around the site by 2018. Improvements to existing cycle infrastructure on Hills Road and Babraham Road will be delivered with funds secured through Cambridgeshire County Council’s successful Cycle City Ambition Grant application to the Department for Transport (April 2013). Other committed schemes will improve existing cycle infrastructure on key local routes at Cherry Hinton High Street and Long Road. A more detailed description of these committed cycle schemes is provided in Technical Appendix B.

Transport Infrastructure Opportunities to Facilitate Development at Cambridge South East 3.4 Potential transport infrastructure opportunities to facilitate development at Cambridge South East have been identified – which mainly focusses on the adjoining transport corridors of Babraham Road/ Hills Road and Fulbourn Road. The infrastructure schemes that have been identified are described below.

The Babraham Road/ Hills Road Corridor 3.5 Opportunities for local junction improvements along the Babraham Road/ Hills Road corridor to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development and to improve

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists have been identified. These opportunities include the potential for junction improvement schemes for the Addenbrooke’s Hospital roundabout, the Hills Road/ Long Road/ Queen Edith’s Way signals and the Hills Road/ Cherry Hinton Road signals. Preliminary feasibility work has identified improvement schemes are deliverable within the existing highway limits.

3.6 Hills Road is a key transport corridor towards Cambridge City Centre. Cambridgeshire County Council acknowledges that Hills Road is already well used by cyclists (Cambridgeshire County Council Cycle City Ambition Grant to Department for Transport - Page 11, Section B: The Business Case). The DTS by Cambridgeshire County Council states that it is one of the main routes used by buses in Cambridge (Page 4-7). An opportunity has been identified to potentially provide a northbound bus lane on Hills Road - between the Long Road and Cherry Hinton Road junctions. This scheme would provide bus priority and improve bus journey times and journey reliability towards Cambridge City Centre and would align directly with vision set out within the DTS to re-allocate road space in favour of sustainable transport modes (page 4-7). The opportunity is described in more detail within Appendix B of the Transport Evidence Base.

The Fulbourn Road Corridor 3.7 Junction improvement schemes on the Fulbourn Road corridor would be delivered as part of the Cambridge South East development. These junction improvements would:

• Mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development on Fulbourn Road; • Provide a new vehicle access point to Cambridge South East; • Provide enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists – including a new pedestrian and cycle access point to Cambridge South East.

3.8 The existing three arm roundabout between Fulbourn Road, Cambridge Road and Yarrow Road would be upgraded to provide a new vehicle access point to Cambridge South East including a 2.5 metre wide shared footway and cycleway on both sides of the road. A preliminary design of this proposed junction improvement scheme is shown in Figure 1.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Figure 1: Preliminary Design of Junction Improvement Scheme

3.9 A series of new pedestrian and cycle links would be provided between Cambridge South East and key local destinations to the north – including nearby bus stops on Fulbourn Road and the Tesco store off Yarrow Road. Improvements to existing bus stops at the eastern end of Fulbourn Road would also be delivered as part of the package of improvements to support development at Cambridge South East. Figure 2 shows the grass verge where a pedestrian footway would be provided to the westbound bus stop at this location.

Figure 2: Opportunity for Local Pedestrian Footway Improvements

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

3.10 A range of infrastructure could feasibly be provided to ensure safe and reliable bus journeys through the Cambridge South East development as illustrated on the plan at Figure 4 of the Transport Evidence Base. A bus gate could potentially be installed at the main access point in to the site for buses from the north - from the area adjacent to Peterhouse Technology Park. Providing a dedicated bus lane within the site and a gate to prevent access by other vehicles would ensure shorter and more reliable journey times for buses serving the Cambridge South East development. Bus gates have been implemented at other locations in Cambridge. Figure 3 shows an existing bus gate at Bridge Street in Cambridge City Centre

Figure 3: Bridge Street Bus Gate

Improved Accessibility to Key Destinations 3.11 A series of other pedestrian and cycle links to key destinations would be provided – including a number of new connections to the nearby public transport hub at Babraham Road Park and Ride. One such connection would involve the provision of a 2.0 metre footway/ cycleway connection on Cherry Hinton Road. A preliminary design of this proposal is shown in Figure 4.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Figure 4: Preliminary Design of Footway/ Cycleway Connection to Babraham Road Park and Ride

Summary of Transport Infrastructure Opportunities 3.12 A summary of the potential off-site transport infrastructure that has been identified to facilitate development at Cambridge South East is summarised in Table 9. Table 9 identifies a range of indicative cost estimates for the different transport infrastructure projects that have been identified. More detailed information is provided in Appendix 1. This infrastructure is presented diagrammatically in Figure 4 of the Transport Evidence Base.

3.13 Estimates have been undertaken of the potential off-site transport infrastructure opportunities to facilitate development at Cambridge South East which identify a range of between £3.5 million and £5.5 million. The scale and cost of infrastructure and associated deliverability risks at the planning and construction stage are therefore significantly lower than those associated with alternative strategic sites at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

Table 9: Transport Infrastructure Required to Support Development at Cambridge South East Category Description Cost Range

Improvements to Fulbourn Road/ Cambridge Road/ Highways £750k to £1.08m Yarrow Road roundabout.

Improvements to Fulbourn Road/ Queen Edith’s Way/ Highways £450k to £648k Cherry Hinton Road junction.

Highways Improvements to Addenbrookes Hospital roundabout. £350k to £504k

Improvements to Hills Road/ Queen Edith’s Way/ Long Highways £650k to £936k Road junction.

Improvements junction in Peterhouse Technology Park to Highways £150k to £216k provide bus access to the site.

New shuttle bus service to serve southern and northern Public Transport £100k to £144k development areas (short-term).

Public Transport Improvements to bus stops on Fulbourn Road £60k to £86k

Public Transport Provide northbound bus lane on Hills Road. £250k to £360k

Provide high quality bus infrastructure including bus Public Transport £100k to £144k shelters and real-time passenger information

Walking and Widen existing pedestrian and cycleways along Queen £50k to £72k Cycling Edith’s Way.

Walking and New route to Addenbrooke’s Hospital (including the bus £195k to £281k Cycling station).

Walking and New route to Babraham Road Park and Ride. £195k to £281k Cycling

Walking and New route to Tesco on eastern side of Gazelle Way. £120k to £160k Cycling

Walking and Extend footpath on southern side of Fulbourn Road to site £90k to 120k Cycling access junction.

Walking and New route to Beaumont Road. £90k to 120k Cycling

Walking and Others – to be determined. £195k to £281k Cycling

TOTAL £3.7m to £5.4m

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

3.14 The transport infrastructure required to support development at Cambridge South East, identified in Table 9, could be delivered in the short term to facilitate the timely delivery of housing in the Local Plan period.

12-167-005-01

Cambridge South East Programme and Funding Risks

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Major transport infrastructure is required to deliver development at the alternative strategic sites of Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. There are significant cost and programme risks associated with delivering this scale of major transport infrastructure.

4.2 It has been demonstrated that the level of investment and scale of transport infrastructure opportunities to facilitate delivery of Cambridge South East is significantly less than that associated with the alternative strategic sites. It is considered that this transport infrastructure investment is cost effective and can be delivered in the short term to facilitate further development at Cambridge South East. This infrastructure can be delivered over a much shorter time frame compared to the alternative strategic sites – enabling housing to be delivered early in the plan period.

12-167-005-01

APPENDIX BGH 1 Appendix 1 – Approach to Developing Cost Estimates for Transport Infrastructure Projects

The Draft Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire and the South Cambridgeshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan identify a schedule of transport infrastructure projects that will enable development at Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. However neither document provides evidence of any background feasibility work, a more detailed description of the schemes or cost estimates for delivering the projects. Cost estimate ranges have been estimated using a variety of sources outlined below:

• Publically available information from transport agencies such as the Highways Agency and Network Rail. • Standard costs for delivering transport infrastructure identified in the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan for 2011 – 2016. • Local case studies for similar transport infrastructure schemes in Cambridge. • Construction Cost Rates. Transport Agencies

The £1.5 billion cost estimate for the A14 improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton has been taken directly from the Highways Agency website. No other publically available information from transport agencies can be found that relates to transport infrastructure projects associated with development at Cambridge South East or the alternative strategic sites. Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016 - Transport Infrastructure Costs

The transport infrastructure cost estimates included in the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan for 2011 – 2016, Policies and Strategy have been used where appropriate. Page 1-3 of this document acknowledges that transport infrastructure is not cheap to deliver and sets out a range of typical scheme costs for different types of transport infrastructure. These cost ranges are summarised in the table below.

\\bgh-london\jobs\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Reports\12-167-005 TM & I Assessment\Appendix BGH1 (i).docx

Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan - Transport Infrastructure Cost Estimates

Scheme Description Cost Range

Major roundabout £1.5m to £2.0m

New road £2.0m to £3.0m per km

Cycle bridge over a river or railway £2.0m to £3.0m

Off-road cycle route £300,000 to £400,000 per km

Bus road £1.5m to £2.5m per km

Pedestrian crossing £55,000 to £60,000

Road re-surfacing and maintenance £150,000 to £200,000 per km

Traffic signal junction £200,000 to £500,000

Case Studies for Similar Projects in Cambridge

Recent cost estimates or actual delivery costs for similar transport infrastructure projects in Cambridge have also been used. Two examples are provided below:

• The DTS has identified that development at Waterbeach will require a new train station. The cost of delivering Chesterton train station in north Cambridge, which will serve Cambridge Science Park once constructed, is estimated to be £26 million. On this basis, we have assumed that the cost of delivering a new train station at Waterbeach will be comparable at an estimated cost of £26 million. • The DTS has identified that development at Northstowe will require the expansion of Longstanton Park and Ride. An Infrastructure Delivery Study by Peter Brett Associates for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridge District Council in August 2012 identified a cost estimate of £1.5 million for the expansion of Newmarket Road Park and Ride site in Cambridge. We have assumed that this cost estimate can be used as a proxy for the cost of expanding Longstanton Park and Ride site. BGH Cost Estimates

Cost estimates have been carried out – in the event that transport infrastructure schemes do not fall in to the categories identified in the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan. Contingency

To reflect the lack of feasibility work or scheme detail presented in the DTS a contingency factor of 44% has been applied to the cost estimates derived from local case studies in Cambridge or estimated in this note. This is consistent with the Department for Transport’s Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.5.9 – “The Estimation and Treatment of Scheme Costs” (August 2012). Table 9 on Page 21 of this guidance document recommends a contingency factor of 44% for the following projects that are in the earliest stage of development (Stage 1 of the project lifecycle):

\\bgh-london\jobs\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Reports\12-167-005 TM & I Assessment\Appendix BGH1 (i).docx

• Trunk Roads. • Local Roads. • Bicycle Facilities. • Pedestrian Facilities. • Park and Ride. • Bus Lane Schemes. • Guided Buses on Wheels. It should be noted that a 44% contingency factor has also been applied to Waterbeach train station and not the higher 66% factor identified by the Department for Transport for rail projects at Stage 1 of their lifecycle. On this basis the cost range identified for Waterbeach train station could feasibly be a significant underestimate. Inflation

Inflation would increase the cost of delivering transport infrastructure projects – with the scale of increase being more significant for major schemes that are delivered later in the plan period, e.g. the A14 improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton and Waterbeach train station. The cost estimate ranges prepared by Bryan G Hall do not account for inflation and therefore underestimate the cost of delivering different transport infrastructure schemes. The following should be noted:

• Standard costs for delivering transport infrastructure identified in the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan for 2011 – 2016 are based on 2010 prices and therefore do not account for inflation. • The cost ranges identified by Bryan G Hall are based on 2013 prices and do not account for inflation. • The cost estimates for similar projects in Cambridge do not account for inflation.

\\bgh-london\jobs\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Reports\12-167-005 TM & I Assessment\Appendix BGH1 (i).docx

BOURN AIRFIELD MAIN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY BRYAN G HALL

Cost Range HIGHWAYS From To Source of Cost Estimate Notes

Measures to mitigate traffic impact on the A428/ A1303 junction and A28/ A1198 junctions. £2,000,000 £2,880,000 BGH Exact details of mitigation measures unknown - subject to detailed traffic impact assessment.

Measures to mitigate the traffic impact on surrounding local villages and roads at Bourn, Caldecote, Toft, Comberton and Barton. £1,000,000 £1,440,000 BGH Exact details of mitigation measures unknown - subject to detailed traffic impact assessment.

Provide at least two separate vehicle access points to the north west and north east of the site. £400,000 £1,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume from A428. Assume 2 junctions at either £200,000 per junction (low) or £500,000 per junction (high).

Prevent direct vehicular access to the Broadway (except buses and bicycles). £105,000 £210,000 South Lane Bus Gate and Camera Enforcement, Sheffield City Council (Febuary 2013). Assume provision of 1 bus gate or 2 bus gates.

Sub-Total for Highways £3,505,000 £5,530,000 PUBLIC TRANSPORT Segregated bus links from the A428 through the West Cambourne site, linking to Great Cambourne by the Cambourne Business £3,000,000 £5,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 2 km long at either £1.5m per km (low) or £2.5m per km (high). Park and School Lane Lower Cambourne. A segregated bus link from Cambourne to Bourn Airfield new village across the Broadway, and on through the development to the £4,500,000 £7,500,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 3 km long at either £1.5m per km (low) or £2.5m per km (high). junction of St. Neots Road with Highfields Road. Any measures necessary to ensure that a bus journey between Highfields and the junction of the A428 and the A1303 is direct and Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin Lucas-Smith - £1,000,000 £1,440,000 unaffected by any congestion suffered by general traffic. Appendix 7 (May 2000).

High quality segregated bus priority measures on the A1303 between its junction with the A428 and Queens Road, Cambridge. £7,500,000 £12,500,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 5 km long at either £1.5m per km (low) or £2.5m per km (high).

A Park and Ride accessed from the A428. £3,900,000 £5,616,000 BGH Average cost of Park and Ride is £3.9m.

Sub-Total for Public Transport £19,900,000 £32,056,000 WALKING AND CYCLING A network of attractive, direct, safe and convenient walking and cycling routes linking homes to public transport and the main areas Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin Lucas-Smith - £250,000 £360,000 Assume 5 km of route at £50,000 per km for inter-urban footways. of activity such as the village centre, schools and employment areas. Appendix 7 (May 2000). Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to west Cambridge, Papworth Everard, Highfields, Hardwick, Caxton, £1,500,000 £2,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 5 km of route at either £300,000 per km (low) or £400,000 per km (high). Bourn, Caldecote, Comberton, Bar Hill and Dry Drayton. Sub-Total for Walking and Cycling £1,750,000 £2,360,000

£25,155,000 £39,946,000

Notes: Schedule sourced from Appendix 2 of “Towards a Draft Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire”, May 2013 and “South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Proposed Submission", July 2013). 44% Optimism bias applied to schemes at Stage 1 of the life of transport project (Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance 3.5.9 - The Estimation and Treatment of Scheme Costs, August 2012 Optimism bias has been applied to schemes that are not included in the standard cost ranges for transport schemes identified on Page 1-3 of the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy.

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\Draft Transport Infrastructure Requirements v6.0 Bourn Airfield WATERBEACH MAIN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY BRYAN G HALL

Cost Range HIGHWAYS From To Source of Cost Estimate Notes

Additional capacity for general traffic between the northernmost access to the new town and the Milton Interchange of the A10 Assume dualling of A10 between Cambridge Research Park and A14 Milton Interchange (Ref: CSRM Modelling Section of A10 is 6.5 km long at either £2.0 million per km or £3.0 million per km (Cambridge Local Transport £13,000,000 £19,500,000 with the A14 trunk road. Summary Report for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans - July 2013). Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p1-3).

Additional capacity at the Milton Interchange for movements between the A10 and A14. £2,000,000 £2,880,000 BGH Exact details of mitigation measures unknown - subject to detailed traffic impact assessment.

Delivery or funding of any measures required to mitigate the traffic impact of the new town on Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Milton and £1,000,000 £1,440,000 BGH Exact details of mitigation measures unknown - subject to detailed traffic impact assessment. Landbeach.

A primary vehicle access route to the A10. £2,000,000 £3,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 1 km of new road at either £2m per km (low) or £3m per km (high).

Review vehicle access arrangements to Denny Abbey. £100,000 £144,000 BGH Denny Abbey is currently accessed from A10.

Sub-Total for Highways £18,100,000 £26,964,000 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Relocate Waterbeach train station. £26,000,000 £37,440,000 Cambridge's new railway station "to open in 2015", Cambridge News, 21st February 2012. Use cost estimate for Chesterton Railway Station as a proxy.

Route distance of 10 km from new Waterbeach train station to Chesterton Road via Milton Road at either A busway link from the train station and town centre to north Cambridge including a fully segregated crossing of the A14 trunk road. £15,000,000 £25,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). £1.5m per km (low) or £2.5m per km (high).

A Park and Ride site on the A10 to intercept traffic from the north of Waterbeach, served by the new Busway link to Cambridge. £3,900,000 £5,616,000 BGH Average cost of Park and Ride is £3.9m.

Sub-Total for Public Transport £44,900,000 £68,056,000 WALKING AND CYCLING A network of attractive, direct, safe and convenient walking and cycling routes linking homes to public transport and the main areas Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin Lucas-Smith - £250,000 £360,000 Assume 5 km of route at £50,000 per km for inter-urban footways. of activity such as the town centre, schools and employment areas. Appendix 7 (May 2000). Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to north Cambridge, surrounding villages and nearby existing facilities such £1,500,000 £2,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 5 km of route at either £300,000 per km (low) or £400,000 per km (high). as the Cambridge Research Park. Sub-Total for Walking and Cycling £1,750,000 £2,360,000

£64,750,000 £97,380,000

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\Draft Transport Infrastructure Requirements v6.0 Waterbeach NORTHSTOWE MAIN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY BRYAN G HALL

Cost Range HIGHWAYS From To Source of Cost Estimate Notes

Oakington Bypass £10,000,000 £15,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 5 km of new road at either £2m per km (low) or £3m per km (high).

Northstowe Access Works £4,000,000 £6,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume 2 km of new road at either £2m per km (low) or £3m per km (high).

Improvements to A14 to support full development: £1,500,000,000 £1,500,000,000 Highways Agency.

Widening of the A14 Cambridge Northern Bypass between Milton and Girton and enhancement of the Girton, Histon and Milton Unknown Unknown N/A No detail currently available about how much each component costs. Interchange. Provision of high standard roads for local traffic use running in parallel to an enhanced A14 carriageway between Girton and Unknown Unknown N/A No detail currently available about how much each component costs. Swavesey.

Construction of a bypass to the south of Huntingdon between Ellington and Swavesey. Unknown Unknown N/A No detail currently available about how much each component costs.

Widening of the A1 trunk road between Brampton and Alconbury. Unknown Unknown N/A No detail currently available about how much each component costs.

Sub-Total for Highways £1,514,000,000 £1,521,000,000 PUBLIC TRANSPORT PBA's Infrastructure Delivery Study of August 2012 for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire Page 38 of PBA's report identifies a £1.5m cost for expansion of Newmarket Road Park and Ride site. Use this Expansion of Longstanton Park and Ride. £1,500,000 £2,160,000 District Council as a proxy for expansion of Longstanton Park and Ride site.

Provide busway loop through Northstowe. £6,000,000 £10,000,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). Assume busway loop is 4km long at either £1.5m per km (low) or £2.5m per km (high).

Sub-Total for Public Transport £7,500,000 £12,160,000 WALKING AND CYCLING

No infrastructure identified. £1,500,000 £2,160,000 BGH

Sub-Total for Walking and Cycling £1,500,000 £2,160,000

£1,523,000,000 £1,535,320,000

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\Draft Transport Infrastructure Requirements v6.0 Northstowe CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST MAIN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO POTENTIALLY FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT

PREPARED BY BRYAN G HALL

Cost Range From To Source of Cost Estimate Notes HIGHWAYS Upgrade and enlarge existing Fulbourn Road/ Cambridge Road/ Yarrow Road 3-arm £750,000 £1,080,000 BGH Approximate cost. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees. roundabout to include new arm for site access.

Mitigation measures at Fulbourn Road/ Queen Ediths Way/ Cherry Hinton Road junction. £450,000 £648,000 BGH Approximate cost. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees.

Mitigation measures at Addenbrookes Hospital roundabout. £350,000 £504,000 BGH Approximate cost. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees.

Mitigation measures at Hills Road/ Queen Ediths Way/ Long Road junction. £650,000 £936,000 BGH Approximate cost. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees.

Upgrade junction in Peterhouse Technology Park to allow bus access to site. £150,000 £216,000 BGH Approximate cost. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees.

Sub-Total for Highways £2,350,000 £3,384,000 PUBLIC TRANSPORT Short Term: New shuttle bus service to serve the southern and northern parts of the £100,000 £144,000 BGH development area.

Improve bus stops on Fulbourn Road that are located around 150 metres from the site Northstowe: Phase One Outline Planning Application: Consultation Response on Transport £60,000 £86,400 Including 1 bus shelter with real time information. access junction. Issues and Section 106 Heads of Terms, 2nd October 2012.

Provide northbound bus lane on Hills Road between junction with Long Road/ Queen 1 km of route. Includes improvements to junction with Queen Edith's Way at northern end. £250,000 £360,000 BGH Edith's Way and junction with Cherry Hinton Road. Cost excludes statutory undertakers diversions and local authority fees.

High quality bus infrastructure including bus shelters equipped with real-time passenger £100,000 £144,000 BGH information. Sub-Total for Public Transport £510,000 £734,400 WALKING AND CYCLING Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin Widen existing pedestrian and cycleways along Queen Ediths Way. £50,000 £72,000 Assume 1 km of route. Assume £50,000 per km. Lucas-Smith - Appendix 7 (May 2000).

New routes to existing surrounding areas, including new road crossing points: N/A N/A

Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin * Addenbrooke's Hospital (including the bus station). £195,000 £280,800 £150,000 for route plus £45,000 for Toucan crossing. Lucas-Smith - Appendix 7 (May 2000). Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin * Babraham Road Park and Ride site. £195,000 £280,800 Lucas-Smith - Appendix 7 (May 2000). * Provide footpath/ cycleway on eastern side of Gazelle Way between site access junction £120,000 £160,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). 0.4 km of route at either £300,000 per km (low) or £400,000 per km (high). and Tesco.

* Extend footpath on southern side of Fulbourn Road to site access junction. £90,000 £120,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). 0.3 km of route at either £300,000 per km (low) or £400,000 per km (high).

* Provide pedestrian link to Beaumont Road. £90,000 £120,000 Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy (p 1-3). 0.3 km of route at either £300,000 per km (low) or £400,000 per km (high).

Park and Ride - Sustainable Transport or Expensive White Elephant? Dissertation by Martin * Others - to be determined. £195,000 £280,800 Allow for 1 other route plus Toucan crossing. Lucas-Smith - Appendix 7 (May 2000). Sub-Total for Walking and Cycling £935,000 £1,314,400

£3,795,000 £5,432,800

Notes: Schedule of intrastructure sourced from: "Cambridge South East: South Cambridgeshire District Council, Local Plan Representations, Transport" (Bryan G Hall, September 2012)

44% Optimism bias applied to schemes at Stage 1 of the life of transport project (Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance 3.5.9 - The Estimation and Treatment of Scheme Costs, August 2012 Optimism bias has been applied to schemes that are not included in the standard cost ranges for transport schemes identified on Page 1-3 of the Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy.

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\Draft Transport Infrastructure Requirements v6.0 Cambs South East Summary Table of UK Park and Ride Sites

No. Location Opening Year Parking Spaces Cost Source of Cost 1 Babraham Road, Cambridge 1999 1,043 £2,960,000 Cambridge Park and Ride Disseration, Martin Lucas-Smith (May, 2000) 2 Madingley Road, Cambridge 1996 930 £1,410,000 Cambridge Park and Ride Disseration, Martin Lucas-Smith (May, 2000) 3 Trumpington Road, Cambridge Unknown 1,340 £4,880,000 Cambridge Park and Ride Disseration, Martin Lucas-Smith (May, 2000) 4 Braunton, Devon TBC 210 £1,750,000 Braunton Park and Ride/ Beach Study - Feasibility Report, Devon County Council (No date provided) 5 Manor Park, Guildford TBC Unknown £3,500,000 Report to Head of Planning Services (November, 2011) 6 Birstall, Leicester TBC 1,000 £5,500,000 Birstall Park and Ride, Business Case Submission for Community Infrastructure Funding Round 2 (November 2008) 7 Onslow , Surrey 2013 550 £4,000,000 Onslow Park and Ride Progress Report (November 2012) 8 Windsor TBC 900 £7,000,000 Windsor Park and Ride - Options Appraisal (November 2007) Average: £3,875,000

Y:\2012\12-151 to 12-175\12-167 Cambridge South East\Technical\Draft Transport Infrastructure Requirements v6.0 Notes - Park and Ride Summary Table of UK Busway Projects

No. Location Opening Year Distance (Km) Cost Source of Cost Cost per Km 1 Cambridge Guided Busway 2011 25.0 £116,000,000 Wikipedia £4,640,000 2 South East Hampshire BRT 2012 4.5 £20,000,000 Wikipedia £4,444,444 3 Leigh-Salford-Manchester BRT 2015 7.0 £30,000,000 Wikipedia £4,285,714 4 Crawley 2003 (Phase 1) 7.3 £27,000,000 Wikipedia £3,698,630 Total 43.8 £193,000,000

Average Cost per Km: £4,406,393

Conclusion: Case Studies of 4 UK sites show average cost of providing busway is £4.4 million per km. Note: Cambridge Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2016, Policies and Strategy, cites £1.5m to £2.5m per km of busway. Note: Cambridge Guided Busway took around 6 years to build the 25 km route (4.2 km per year)

APPENDIX BGH 2

Registered Office London Office

Suite E8 Joseph’s Well Suites 17 & 18 Lighterman House Registered in England & Wales Hanover Walk 26-36 Wharfdale Road Co No: 4104802 Leeds LS3 1AB London N1 9RY

VAT No: 399 4601 07 Telephone: 0113 246 1555 Telephone: 0203 077 2162

Email: [email protected] Website: www.bryanghall.co.uk

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Planning and Economics Civic Studio Masterplanning and Urban Design Tyler Grange Landscape Planning ITP Sustainable Transport Bryan G Hall Transport Infrastructure