COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES (UK) LTD BOURN AIRFIELD (REFERENCE S/3440/18/OL) SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TECHNICAL NOTE 21: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (REFERENCE 1555)
APRIL 2020
COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES (UK) LTD BOURN AIRFIELD (REFERENCE S/3440/18/OL) SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TECHNICAL NOTE 21: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (REFERENCE 1555)
APRIL 2020
Project Code: CPBournAirfield.1
Prepared by: RG
Approved by: IM
Issue Date: April 2020
Status: DRAFT FINAL
Mayer Brown Limited, 10 Fitzroy Square, London W1T 5HP Telephone 0207 874 1574 [email protected] www.mayerbrown.co.uk
Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL) South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
List of Contents
Sections
1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Comments Raised by CCC ...... 2 3 Comments Raised by Highways DM ...... 24 4 Comments Raised by CCC Cycling Officer ...... 27 5 Comments Raised by Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) ...... 29 6 Comments Raised by the Asset Information Definitive Map Team (PROW) ...... 42 7 Conclusions ...... 48
Figures
Figure 2.1: Catchment Area for Public Highway Pedestrian Improvements ...... 3 Figure 2.2: Site Access East Adjusted Junction Geometry ...... 10 Figure 2.3: Catchment Area for Local Cycle Improvements ...... 16 Figure 5.1: Bourn Airfield Development Flows at Madingley Mulch Roundabout ...... 35 Figure 5.2: West Cambourne Development Flows at Madingley Mulch Roundabout ...... 36 Figure 6.1: Access and Movement Parameter Plan ...... 43
Tables
Table 2.1: Crash Data for the Coton Junction – July 2017 to June 2019 ...... 2 Table 2.2: Development Uses Assessed (Table 7.1 from TA) ...... 6 Table 2.3: Non-Residential Development Person Trips by Mode and Total Person Trips ...... 8 Table 2.4: Comparison of Average Trip Rates Observed in the March 2016 and October/November 2019 Surveys within the Cambourne Development ...... 8 Table 2.5: Comparison of Base Flow Operation of the Site Access East Junction with Existing and Proposed Geometry ...... 11 Table 2.6: Site Access East Direct Flow Junction Capacity Assessment Results ...... 11
Table 2.7: Comparison of Operation of Cambridge Crossroads with Prior to Development Traffic and Mitigation ...... 13 Table 2.8: Total Development Trips Using the St Neots Road/Broadway Junction ...... 14 Table 2.9: Trip Rate Target ...... 19 Table 2.10: Summary of the Mitigation Package ...... 23 Table 5.3: Pro-Rata Development Flows Tested on the Madingley Road Corridor ...... 36 Table 5.4: Peak Direction Flow Comparison of Bourn Pro-Rata Flows and Tested Flows .... 37
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Accident Records APPENDIX B: Junction Models APPENDIX C: Updated Plan CP-BOURN-CAMBRIDGEED.1-P2 APPENDIX D: Updated Monitoring Plan
Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
1 Introduction
1.1 This report has been prepared to respond to the response received from Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) dated February 2020 (reference 1555) in relation to the development at Bourn Airfield (reference: S/3440/18/OL) for outline planning permission for a new mixed use village comprising residential development of approximately 3,500 dwellings; mixed uses comprising employment, retail, hotel, leisure, residential institutions; education, community facilities, open space including parks, with associated landscaping and infrastructure.
1.2 The response contains comments from other parties and therefore this report sets out the following: In Section 2: Comments raised by CCC and Mayer Brown responses In Section 3: Comments raised by Highways DM and Mayer Brown responses In Section 4: Comments raised by CCC Cycling Officer and Mayer Brown responses In Section 5: Comments raised by Greater Cambridge Partnership (BCP) and Mayer Brown responses In Section 6: Comments raised by the Asset Information Definitive Map Team (PROW) and Mayer Brown responses In Section 7: The conclusion to this report
Page 1 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2 Comments Raised by CCC
2.1 This section of the report sets out the comments raised by CCC in the response dated February 2020 and the responses to each comment raised, by Mayer Brown (MB). The chapter numbers and paragraph numbers refer to sections within the Transport Assessment.
5. Existing Accessibility
CCC Comment 1
2.2 5.10. Accident statistics have now been provided within the TA, however this only covers up to June 2017 and is out of date. Currently data up to October 2019 is available. Updated information should be obtained from CCC. This also needs to look at the cluster sites along the route. There is a cluster site on the Madingley Road/ Cambridge Road (Coton junction), the cause of the accidents should be reviewed and investigated to determine whether any additional mitigation can be provided to mitigate the impact of the additional trips as a result of the development.
MB Response
2.3 Additional accident records have been obtained from CCC for additional accidents records between July 2017 to June 2019. Table 2.1 shows that there has been no change in accident records at the Coton junction, in particular there have been no Fatal Accidents at this junction. The full additional data is contained in Appendix A. Period Slight Serious Fatal Total Source 2012 - June 2017 6 6 0 12 TA Table 5.1 July 2017-June 2 3 0 5 Appendix A 2019 Table 2.1: Crash Data for the Coton Junction – July 2017 to June 2019
2.5 It is proposed that any consented development has an ongoing monitoring requirement this can include for monies towards a TRO to reduce speed limit at this junction, if this were to assist in providing a road safety benefit.
Summary – Forms part of overall monitoring condition, with monies towards a TRO if required.
CCC Comment 2
2.6 5.14. Bus number 4 stops at two stops on St Neots Road (old A428). It is proposed to divert this and other bus services into and through the site and in the future. Agreement
Page 2 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
from the service provider should be obtained and included showing that this is agreed, to ensure that improvements to links to the existing stops are not required.
AND
CCC Comment 3
2.7 5.24 States that the surrounding roads of Highfields and Broadway have footways, however it should be noted that these are not always in a good state and improvements should be made to bring them up to standard and provide good quality sustainable connections to the new development. Further information is required on proposed improvements so this can be included as part of any permission.
MB Response
2.8 The use of these stops has been observed and it is not clear there is any usage. A confirmation from the Local Bus Operator has been sought, but it is considered that this could be conditioned, in terms of the requirement discussed within this report to provide local upgrades to the pedestrian connections.
2.9 For the purpose of the S106 Agreement a Local Footway Enhancement Fund will be identified. This will identify monies to be used for footway enhancements within the catchment area shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Catchment Area for Public Highway Pedestrian Improvements
Page 3 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.10 The nature of the improvements would be identified through a detailed walking audit and it would be proposed that a condition is included in a permission that prior to 1st Occupation of any development, a Walking Audit will be undertaken and that improvements will be identified and such improvements would be agreed, subject to the value of the Local Footway Enhancement Fund identified in the S106 Agreement.
2.11 A draft of the walking audit is to be provided under separate cover for reference within the S106 Agreement.
Summary – Forms part of a condition to prior to 1st occupation of the development to deliver within the existing highways boundary improvements to the local pedestrian network.
Trip Generation Note (in Appendices)
CCC Comment 4
2.12 Table 2.4. It is not clear in the trip generation note what basis is used for assuming 50% of Retail Trips will be internal. Further information and evidence is required.
AND
CCC Comment 5
2.13 6.17 of the trip generation note states that 80% of the retail trips will be from within the Bourn Airfield development. Earlier in the technical note this refers to 50% internalisation. This should be clarified within the TA.
AND
CCC Comment 6
2.14 Table 6.8. The trip rates in the table do not seem to correspond with the trip rates in the above table (6.7). The text says this is based on 4,000sqm of retail use. Also it is not clear whether this has been based on the 50% internalisation assumption or the 80% internalisation assumption. As mentioned above, further evidence should be provided to justify the internalisation rate assumptions.
MB Response
2.15 The proposed development details include for 4,000sqm Gross External Area of retail space, with a restriction on a single unit size of 1,500sqm GEA.
Page 4 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.16 The 50% internalisation has been accepted by Highways England in their response to Technical Note 08, since they considered it provides a balanced view of trips from the development to the retail and external trips to the retail.
2.17 The explanation provided in Technical Note 08 states in paragraph 1.25:
“The proposed development details show that due to the size restriction of single units, that a food supermarket of 1,500 sqm GFA with an 80% internalisation factor would remove 55 trips from the network in the AM Peak and 102 trips in the PM Peak. The 50% internalisation on shopping trips from the proposed development would remove 39 trips from the network in the AM Peak and 103 trips in the PM Peak. This shows that the internalisation factor applied on the shopping and retail trips are concurrent with one another. Furthermore, the increased size of the tested retail space provides a rigorous assessment of the network.”
2.18 The HE response in TN02 paragraphs 2.13 and 2.15:
“AECOM consider that the application of a 50% internalisation factor for retail vehicle trips is reasonable.” (HE TN02, para 2.13)
“AECOM consider that the reduction applied to the take into account the internalisation associated with retail trips [80%] are reasonable and that these variations will not have a significant impact on the highway network.” (HE TN02, para 2.18)
CCC Comment 7
2.19 6.23 The technical note states that some of the uses have not been considered for potential trip generation due to them either (i) being to serve the community or (ii) a nominal amount of trips during the peak periods. It is not agreed that the 2,000sqm of Health and fitness use should not be factored into the trip generation as this may well generate some additional external peak hour trips. Further information should either be provided to demonstrate that this is not the case or the trips included.
MB Response
2.20 The Health and Fitness centre has been tested as shown in Table 7.1 of the TA repeated in Table 2.2. This shows the Health and Fitness Centre has been added to the employment quantum that has been tested. This provides a rigorous test since it is assigns trips on a wider basis to the network.
Page 5 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Included in Proposed Use Assessment 3,500 residential Approximately 3,500 dwellings (Class C3 use) dwellings Up to 4,000sqm Gross External Area (GEA) of retail uses (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 uses) in total in which no single outlet will be larger 5,500sqm GFA than 1,500sqm GEA Up to 1,500 sq.m GEA of employment uses comprising offices, research and development and light industry only (Class B1a, b and c uses) Up to 250 units of residential institutional use (Class C2 use) 26,544sqm GFA Up to 2,250sqm GEA of community uses (Class D1 use) Up to 2,000sqm GEA for health and fitness, gym and other cultural and recreational uses (Class D2 use) Up to 5,000sqm GEA hotel accommodation 7,300sqm GFA 2 Primary Schools incorporating pre-school provision (Class D1 use) on 2 Primary Schools sites 1 Secondary 1 Secondary School for up to 6 forms entry (Class D1 use) on a site School Table 2.2: Development Uses Assessed (Table 7.1 from TA)
2.21 Even though this was stated in paragraph 6.23 that it is considered that the peak period trips would be nominal, the Health and Fitness land use was tested as if it were part of the business uses.
CCC Comment 8
2.22 The developer has provided some technical notes seeking to explain the differences between the Cambourne counts and the Bourn forecasts. The most recent note does not include a clear comparison between the makeup of the Cambourne junction totals and the makeup of the Bourn forecasts for all elements of the development. Until it can be clearly demonstrated that the Bourn forecasts are comparable we cannot approve the trip rates, and therefore the developer will need to revisit the technical note.
AND
CCC Comment 9
2.23 There have been several queries regarding the trip rates by various Parish Councils which CCC also require a robust explanation for. These include: Querying the disparity between the proposed trip generation within the Bourn Airfield TA and the traffic generation that Bourn Parish Council counted entering/exiting Cambourne (or the TRICS survey). The applicant needs to review this information and give a convincing explanation as to why they are so different and the Bourn TA trip generation is lower, or use higher trip rates to take into account the differences.
Page 6 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
The Parish Councils are also challenging the forecast number of trips through Hardwick via St Neots Road, which they believe is underestimated due to rat running that takes place due to Madingley Road being at capacity during the peaks. This should be reviewed by the developer team.
MB Response
2.24 This has been demonstrated in Technical Note 20. This note concludes with reference to the comprehensive survey data that the entry counts at Cambourne undertaken by the Parish Council in 2016 are similar to those undertaken by Mayer Brown in October 2019 and allowing for the fact that: Cambourne has a higher quantum of residential units Cambourne has a higher quantum of commercial, retail, hotel uses The Bourn Airfield application restricts retail unit size, so for example a large Morrisons could not be provided No allowance has been made for any trips routing through Cambourne from the A1198 to the A428
2.25 This clearly demonstrates that on a pro-rata basis the Bourn Airfield projections are robust.
In relation to Rat Running through Hardwick
2.26 The analysis in the TA has demonstrated that the queuing for southbound traffic on the M11 can be reduced through the repositioning of the Bus Lane thereby reducing the propensity to queue. Notwithstanding the above, a clear S106 commitment has been provided to monitor the impacts and provide mitigation as necessary.
Section 7: Distribution and Assignment of Trips
CCC Comment 10
2.27 Table 7.2 includes the person trips by mode for the residential element of the development. Table 7.3 shows the vehicular trip rates for the whole development, but the total person trips for the whole development doesn’t appear to have been included. This information should be provided by mode for the peak hours and 24hr period.
MB Response
2.28 The person trips were calculated using the person trip calculation provided in Appendix H of the Cambourne West TA which did not provide person trip movements for the non-
Page 7 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
residential uses. Nonetheless, the person trips for non-residential uses is shown in Table 2.3. AM Peak PM Peak 24hr Weekday Travel Mode Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Train 28 88 101 45 445 413 Total Development
Trips by Mode Bus 46 130 151 67 677 618 Motorcycle 6 17 20 10 89 85 Car passenger 31 98 114 51 501 465 Bicycle 23 67 77 35 344 317 On foot 43 129 148 67 655 612 Other 6 17 20 10 89 85 Other Modes Total 182 546 632 284 2800 2596 Bourn Car Driver Trips 521 957 1203 677 5925 5108 Total Person Trips Non-Residential 335 199 210 256 1873 1425 Total Person Trips Residential 368 1304 1625 705 6852 6279 Total Person Trips Whole 703 1503 1835 961 8724 7704 Development Table 2.3: Non-Residential Development Person Trips by Mode and Total Person Trips
CCC Comment 11
2.29 Updated surveys were undertaken in October/ November 2019 within Cambourne, please include the dates to ensure these were not undertaken during holiday time.
MB Response
2.30 The surveys were undertaken from and 9th November to 22nd November 2019 for survey sites 4 and 12 and 7th October to 18h October 2019 for all other survey sites. These dates did not include any weekdays in which there were school holidays.
CCC Comment 12
2.31 Table 7.15. This table only shows the comparison between the AM peak departures and the PM peak arrivals. The arrivals and departures of both peaks and the daily flows should be provided for comparison.
MB Response
2.32 The table was intended to show the peak direction trips, however the non-peak direction trips are shown in Table 2.4. AM Peak PM Peak Daily
Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Average Trip Rate (March 2016) 0.13 0.40 0.41 0.19 2.96 2.97 Average Trip Rate (October/November 2019) 0.16 0.35 0.38 0.23 3.08 2.98 Table 2.4: Comparison of Average Trip Rates Observed in the March 2016 and October/November 2019 Surveys within the Cambourne Development
Page 8 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.33 Table 2.4 demonstrates that there is not a material difference between the 2016 and 2019 surveys and indeed the peak direction the surveys are slightly lower. It is noted that Technical Note 20 demonstrated a much higher level of internalisation than was considered in the Bourn Airfield assessment and therefore the external trip rates in the non-peak direction are likely to be considerably lower than those surveyed and assessed.
8 Trip Generation and Traffic Impacts - Traffic Modelling Comments
2.34 The TA and appendices include traffic modelling undertaken by Mayer Brown. The following comments are on the latest iteration of this modelling. It should be noted that the model inputs are not accepted given the outstanding issues set out above.
CCC Comment 13
(1) Caxton Gibbet Roundabout
2.35 Mayer Brown have undertaken a capacity assessment for the Caxton Gibbett roundabout considering the existing roundabout layout and the improvement scheme for the roundabout identified in the TA for Cambourne West.
2.36 It is noted Mayer Brown are happy to accept a condition to implement the mitigation scheme for the Caxton Gibbett roundabout agreed as part of the Cambourne West development, if there is a material delay to either the implementation of the Highways England Black Cat to Caxton Gibbett Improvements or the Cambourne West development.
MB Response
2.37 Noted.
CCC Comment 14
(2a) Cambourne Dumbbells North
2.38 The junction is anticipated to operate within capacity with the proposed junction improvements in place consented as part of the Cambourne West development. It is agreed that mitigation is not required at this junction.
MB Response
2.39 Noted.
CCC Comment 15
(4) Site Access East
Page 9 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.40 Our previous comments noted the Site Access East junction was anticipated to operate slightly over capacity on the St Neots Road East arm in the PM peak even with the GCP mitigation in place at 0.883 RFC. We requested Mayer Brown to investigate potential improvements to bring this junction under capacity. Mayer Brown have since modelled the junction with a scheme in place which comprises an adjustment to the St Neots Road East approach to allow for two lanes of approach traffic over a longer distance. It is noted the geometries entered into the junction model for the revised junction layout are exactly the same as that inputted into the junction model for the Site Access prior to the lane widening scheme. This should be revised. Furthermore, the revised model has been undertaken using the FLAT profile type rather than the DIRECT profile type typically requested by the County Council. Therefore, the Site Access East junction should be remodelled to consider the above revisions to demonstrate the junction will operate within capacity for all assessment scenarios.
MB Response
2.41 The adjusted junction geometry is shown in Figure 2.2 below, which forms Appendix H1 of the TA. The scope to increase capacity at this junction is limited by the available highway’s capacity, but the flaring on the St Neots Road westbound approach can be widened to increase capacity.
Figure 2.2: Site Access East Adjusted Junction Geometry
Page 10 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.42 The results shown in Table 2.5, compare the Base Flows using the existing geometry with the development flows and the proposed geometry. The model has been tested using the DIRECT profile.
2.43 The two separate models form Appendix B to this report. AM PM Queue Queue Delay (s) RFC Delay (s) RFC (PCU) (PCU) Base (Existing Geometry) Arm A – Cul de Sac 0.0 7.25 0.005 0.0 0.00 0.000 Arm B – St Neots Road East 0.4 5.57 0.214 2.0 7.10 0.520 Arm C – Highfields Road 0.7 8.03 0.268 0.3 8.35 0.161 Arm D – Wellington Way 0.0 2.89 0.006 0.0 3.14 0.027 Arm E – St Neots Road West 0.9 5.76 0.344 0.4 5.10 0.197 Base (Proposed Geometry) Arm A – Cul de Sac 0.0 8.54 0.006 0.0 0.00 0.000 Arm B – St Neots Road East 0.4 4.59 0.194 1.1 5.48 0.461 Arm C – Highfields Road 0.5 6.15 0.237 0.3 6.71 0.123 Arm D – Wellington Way 0.0 7.40 0.012 0.1 7.93 0.064 Arm E – St Neots Road West 0.7 4.47 0.276 0.3 4.06 0.159 Table 2.5: Comparison of Base Flow Operation of the Site Access East Junction with Existing and Proposed Geometry
2.44 The proposed geometry tested with the future flows using a direct flow profile and lane simulation mode is shown in Technical Note 12. The results from of the Tests 5 and 6 Lane Simulation model are shown below in Table 2.6. AM PM
Queue Delay Queue Delay RFC RFC (PCU) (s) (PCU) (s) Test 5 (Direct Flows – Lane Simulation Mode) Arm A – Cul de Sac 0.0 15.14 0.017 0.0 0.00 0.000 Arm B – St Neots Road East 0.8 5.27 0.367 8.1 20.22 0.905 Arm C – Highfields Road 0.7 8.21 0.319 0.7 13.18 0.284 Arm D – Wellington Way 5.1 23.21 0.736 2.4 15.52 0.659 Arm E – St Neots Road West 1.3 6.22 0.445 0.7 5.64 0.333 Test 6 (Direct Flows – Lane Simulation Mode) Arm A – Cul de Sac 0.0 14.73 0.016 0.0 0.00 0.000 Arm B – St Neots Road East 0.9 5.14 0.366 8.3 20.08 0.880 Arm C – Highfields Road 0.8 8.20 0.310 0.7 13.00 0.281 Arm D – Wellington Way 4.7 22.95 0.716 2.4 15.42 0.641 Arm E – St Neots Road West 1.3 6.12 0.437 0.8 5.49 0.350 Table 2.6: Site Access East Direct Flow Junction Capacity Assessment Results
2.45 It is not accepted that there is a capacity issue at this junction. It can be seen for the test of the full development with cumulative development the maximum queue projected in the pm peak is 8 PCU’s.
Page 11 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
CCC Comment 16
(5) Madingley Mulch Roundabout
2.46 Whilst the junction is anticipated to operate over capacity in future year scenarios, it is agreed the development is not anticipated to generate a significant impact to the capacity of the Madingley Mulch roundabout and a lot of the problems at this roundabout can be as a result of capacity issues further down Madingley Road. Therefore, it is agreed that mitigation is not required at this junction for this development.
MB Response
2.47 Noted.
CCC Comment 17
(6) Cambridge Crossroads
2.48 It is noted that a toucan crossing will be provided just east of the existing bus laybys on Madingley Road at the Cambridge Crossroad site. Due to the limitations with PICADY and the location of the toucan crossing, it is noted the junction has been modelled with the side road flows set to zero. The Cambridge Crossroads junction is anticipated to operate over capacity in the Test 5 and Test 6 scenarios with a maximum RFC of 1.57. Mayer Brown should investigate potential improvements to bring this junction under capacity should it be deemed necessary through monitor and manage.
MB Response
2.49 As discussed previously with CCC, the scope for improvement is limited at the junction as space within the highway boundary is minimal, nonetheless, the junction changes have been included as Appendix B to the TA.
2.50 Table 2.7 shows the operation of the junction with the development flows added, allowing for developer delivered mitigation to slightly reduce traffic flows as shown in paragraph 4.11 of the County response dated February 2020, namely 25 less vehicles in the peak direction in the am peak and 32 less vehicles in the peak direction in the pm peak.
Page 12 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
AM Peak PM Peak Movement MMQ Delay MMQ Delay RFC RFC (PCUs) (s/PCU) (PCUs) (s/PCU) Test 1: Base + Growth Cambridge Road South – Left Turn and Ahead 0.1 7.26 0.12 1.2 21.71 0.54 Madingley Road East – Right Turn 0.1 16.47 0.10 0.5 11.60 0.32 Cambridge Road North – Left Turn and Ahead 1.0 12.59 0.50 0.1 6.34 0.09 Madingley Road West – Right Turn 1.0 12.52 0.49 0.4 21.19 0.29 Test 3: Base + Growth + Dev + Mitigation Cambridge Road South – Left Turn and Ahead 0.2 7.59 0.12 6.6 113.75 0.96 Madingley Road East – Right Turn 0.1 19.68 0.11 0.5 12.93 0.35 Cambridge Road North – Left Turn and Ahead 1.2 14.99 0.55 0.1 9.43 0.13 Madingley Road West – Right Turn 1.0 13.55 0.50 0.6 30.16 0.36 Table 2.7: Comparison of Operation of Cambridge Crossroads with Prior to Development Traffic and Mitigation
2.51 This shows that under very reasonable assumptions with regards to mitigation and with the provision of traffic growth, that the junction operates fairly close to the existing predicted conditions. It is noted the maximum queue on Cambridge Road South is projected to grow to 6.6 PCU’s.
2.52 Tests 5 and 6 relate to the situation with cumulative development on the corridor delivered within the plan period. This includes for the Cambourne West consent for which no assessment was required, and it is clear that wider interventions within the corridor delivered in the Local Plan period to change modal share will reduce flows for the cumulative test.
CCC Comment 18
(8) A428/Scotland Road/St Neots Road
2.53 It is noted the A428/Scotland Road/St Neots Road junction will operate within capacity for all assessment scenarios.
MB Response
2.54 Noted.
CCC Comment 19
(9) Broadway/St Neots Road
2.55 Previous comments made by the County Council note this junction will operate over capacity in the PM peak of the Test 6 scenario. In response, Mayer Brown submitted sensitivity tests for the junction. Such sensitivity tests showed that a 19% reduction in car trips between Bourn Airfield and Cambourne would lead to all RFC’s at the junction being at or below 0.85. It is noted Mayer Brown are willing to accept a monitor and
Page 13 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
manage condition in relation to the operation of this junction. The applicant should investigate possible improvements to this junction to bring it within capacity whilst also preventing possible u-turners.
2.56 It is not clear where the % reduction for bus use has originated from, more information should be provided about the Atkins report that was referred to and how recent this is and what assumptions have been made etc.
2.57 It should be noted that the agreements that have been reached so far may need to be reviewed depending on the outcome of the trip generation queries.
MB Response
2.58 The Atkins report considering the Potential Modal Share changes due to strategic interventions was dated September 2017.
2.59 In advance of any strategic intervention being provided, the development would facilitate in terms of connections to and from Cambourne: The Bus Service using the dedicated Bus Link The Cycle connections The footway connections
2.60 Therefore, the full connection between Cambourne and Bourn Airfield would be delivered in advance of the wider corridor interventions coming forward.
2.61 We have considered measures to restrict the U-turning at this junction, but this would involve banning the right turn and encourage the limited right turn movement 76 PCUs in the AM peak and 70 PCUs in the PM peak to use the Cambourne Northern Dumbbell.
2.62 It is considered this might lead to rat running and we consider the use of this measure would be considered as part of the agreed monitor and manage. In that context we propose a monitoring condition at this junction, with a cap of development trips using the junction as shown in Table 2.8, would allow the junction to operate within the CCC target of an RFC of 0.85. AM Peak PM Peak Junction Arm Arr Dep Arr Dep Projected Development Trips Prior to Non-Car Connection 254 442 554 308 Development Trips with Non-Car Connection to Achieve 0.85 RFC 254 442 498 279 Table 2.8: Total Development Trips Using the St Neots Road/Broadway Junction
Summary: It is proposed that a condition restricting development unless measures are agreed with CCC if the development trips recorded through ANPR surveys exceed the
Page 14 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
number shown in Table 2.8, which will be referenced within the S106 Agreement as the St Neots Road/Broadway Trip Rate Table.
CCC Comment 20
2.63 8.35 It is essential that the junction design ensures that the access onto the Broadway bans left turns out of the development as well as banning right turns in, coming from the direction of Bourn. The only movements permitted for all traffic should be right turn out and left turn in. Highways DM comments should be referred to and improvements made.
2.64 Reviews of the junction assessments are currently ongoing. Discussions are taking place with the developer’s transport consultants to try to agree suitable models. CCC position is reserved pending the outcome of these discussions.
2.65 CCC has previously requested that the applicant provides alternative junction design for both the East and West accesses that use some additional land that is currently owned by Highways England. CCC are in discussions with HE to try and get this land transferred to us to enable the GCP route be more efficient. The alternative designs should be provided asap so they can be secured as alternatives should the additional land become available.
MB Response
2.66 The status of this land is equivalent to 3rd party land outside of the control of the developer. Any long-term delay awaiting the transfer of this land to have highway powers would delay development implementation and consequently delay housing delivery. It has been proposed to CCC and SCDC that a condition would be acceptable to allow CCC to designate the land as highways land and a detailed application to be submitted for a revised arrangement within the timeline for obtaining Technical Approval for the western and eastern access. The proposed condition wording is;
‘Within 3 months of issue of consent for the proposed development, Cambridgeshire County Council will notify the developer as to whether the land shown in the enclosed plan has highways status. If the land has highways status, then within 2 months of notification the developer will submit a detailed application for a revised access arrangement. If detailed consent is obtained within 3 months, then the developer will implement the revised access arrangement.’
Page 15 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
9 Access for Pedestrians and Cycles
CCC Comment 21
2.67 9.2 The development proposes to provide a new pedestrian and cycle network to link into the existing network in the surrounding area. This includes direct and segregated pedestrian and cycle links to Cambridge, Cambourne/ Highfields, Caldecote, Hardwick and Bourn. Further information is required on the details of these proposed links to the surrounding villages before these can be agreed. Figure 9.3 shows ‘potential connection points and routes’ but CCC need specific proposals to be able to agree. Proposed links between x and y along with proposed standards to be delivered to are required.
MB Response
2.68 The point regarding pedestrian linkages is considered in response to CCC Point 2, with the proposal for a Local Footway Enhancement Fund to be contained within the S106 Agreement, for improvements on the network shown in Figure 2.1.
2.69 In addition, the S106 Agreement would include for a Cycle improvement Fund for Improvements to the Cycle Network as shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Catchment Area for Local Cycle Improvements
Page 16 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
2.70 The nature of the improvements would be identified through a detailed walking audit and cycle audit and it would be proposed that a condition is included in a permission that prior to 1st Occupation of any Development a Walking Audit and Cycle Audit will be undertaken and that improvements will be identified and such improvements would be agreed, subject to the value of the Local Footway Enhancement Fund and the Cycle Improvement Fund identified in the S106 Agreement.
2.71 A draft of the walking and cycling audit is to be provided under separate cover for reference within the S106 Agreement.
Summary – Forms part of a condition to prior to 1st occupation of the development to deliver within the existing highways boundary improvements to the local pedestrian and cycle network.
CCC Comment 22
2.72 9.6. A dedicated strategic public transport route is to be provided through the development. This is being discussed through ongoing discussions with the developers to ensure the provision is to the correct standards and requirements. CCC’s position is reserved subject to the conclusions of these discussions. Please refer to comments from GCP team.
MB Response
2.73 Noted. Responses to GCP comments are contained in Section 5 of this report.
CCC Comment 23
2.74 Figure 8.10 and 9.4 – Proposed Cambridge Crossroads improvement. Feedback has been received asking that the bus stop is not moved into the carriageway on Madingley Road, but remains in the layby. This currently works fairly well and moving it into the carriage way is likely to have a detrimental effect on the traffic flow along such a busy arterial route. This could also have a knock on impact on the M11 slip road and carriageway. The plan should be amended to reflect this.
2.75 Concerns have been raised regarding the poor visibility of the crossing when turning left into Cambridge Road.
2.76 Concerns regarding the signals being so close to the give way. Could lead to confusion when drivers see a green light and subsequently ignore the give way line.
AND
Page 17 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
CCC Comment 24
2.77 Figure 8.10 and 9.4 The proposals shown in figure 8.10 will require a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, this should be arranged to be carried out with the Highways DM officer prior to any permission being granted.
MB Response
2.78 An adjusted plan forms Appendix C to this report, with the layby retained.
2.79 The current situation does not allow for a full Safety Audit to be undertaken. In that context the following condition is proposed:
Prior to 100TH occupation of the development, a measure will be implemented to improve cycle crossing at the Cambridge Crossroads as shown in principal in plan CP.BOURNCAMBRIDGERD.1 REV P2. The final details will be subject to a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Safety Audit and the issue of technical approval.
10 Public Transport Accessibility
CCC Comment 25
2.80 10.1. The proposals include a public transport package. This includes a diversion of the Citi4, X3 and the 18 bus route through the site. CCC does not object to these improvements in principle, however additional information is required before these can be agreed – including expected patronage and viability figures. Confirmation from the operator is required agreeing to these services rerouting.
MB Response
2.81 A firm response from the Operator is being sought.
2.82 However, bearing in mind the operator is being requested to follow a shorter route than their current route with 2 revenue generating stops, it is unlikely that this support will not be forthcoming. It is proposed therefore that a Public Transport Agreement could be required prior to initial occupation, typically stating:
Prior to the 1st occupation of any part of development, the developer will enter into a Public Transport Agreement to provide a bus service to and from the western access to the eastern access, with 2 stops within the development. The service to be in place prior to the 50th occupation.
Page 18 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
CCC Comment 26
2.83 10.6. As part of the Travel Pack for households it is proposed to provide all residents with up to 1 year of free travel by bus. This will be a good benefit and promote sustainable travel. The bus ticket offer should be for at least 1 year rather than up to 1 year.
2.84 The TA doesn’t specify what exactly will be provided out of the various options, and how much funding will be available. Further information should be provided before this can be agreed.
MB Response
2.85 Free bus travel will be provided for 1 year for up to 4 members of each household.
Travel Plan
CCC Comment 27
2.86 6.8 The travel plan proposes 3 targets. The first is the unadjusted trip rates that have been use in the travel plan. It is not clear whether this is the trip rates that already have internalisation included etc or whether they are the trip rates taken directly from TRICS and the Cambourne surveys? Clarification is required.
2.87 If this is the latter then some more aspirational targets should be set to aim to make this development more sustainable than Cambourne.
MB Response
2.88 It is proposed that a single target with mitigation is proposed. This target expressed in Trip Rates and Total Figures is shown in Table 2.9. AM Peak Departures PM Peak (Arrivals) Trip Rate Target 0.230 0.295 Table 2.9: Trip Rate Target
CCC Comment 28
2.89 7.2. The developer needs to provide a minimum of 1 years free bus travel to all occupants of the new development.
MB Response
2.90 See response to comment 26.
Page 19 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
CCC Comment 28
2.91 8.6 .It is agreed that the bus services 4, X3 and 18 should be diverted into the site. Has agreement been given by the bus operators to do this. Please provide evidence.
MB Response
2.92 See response to CCC Comment 25
CCC Comment 29
2.93 8.10. Please confirm the fiscal incentives to encourage travelling by bus. It is understood that this will be 1 year of free bus travel based on 4 tickets per household. What ticket type will this include and where will this free travel cover to and from. Further clarification is required.
MB Response
2.94 The final form of free bus tickets will be agreed with Stagecoach; however, it is anticipated that the ticket will be a ‘Cambridgeshire monthly megarider Plus Xtra’ ticket allowing travel within Cambridge, Peterborough, Huntingdon and surrounding areas. This will be available in either mobile tickets are smart tickets.
12 Proposed Mitigation
CCC Comment 30
2.95 Figure 12.1 shows the proposed mitigation. This includes a taxi bus to Cambridge Science Park and a taxi bus to Addenbrookes hospital. Additional information should be given detailing these proposals including when they are proposed to be implemented, service hours, frequency, cost, capacity etc. The additional services in 10.4 need to be defined and costed to enable CCC to agree the service standards etc.
MB Response
2.96 The shuttle bus services will be procured from 1st occupation and will provide peak period connections to the above locations. An anticipated cost of £130,000 per annum for 5 years based on the experience of Countryside Properties.
CCC Comment 31
2.97 Confirmation is required that up to four, 1 year bus passes will be provided to each house.
MB Response
2.98 As set out in response to CCC Comment 26, a minimum of 1 year’s free travel will be provided to up to 4 occupants of each household.
Page 20 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
CCC Comment 32
2.99 A contribution to the GCP Cambourne to Cambridge scheme needs to be agreed prior to permission being granted. Amount is to be informed by the technical analysis. The development is dependent on the delivery of strategic public transport infrastructure.
MB Response
2.100 The developer has committed to the Contribution but awaits a formula to confirm the level of contribution
CCC Comment 33
2.101 Firm commitments and plans are required detailing the footway/ cycle way improvements linking to the surrounding villages so these can be agreed with CCC.
MB Response
2.102 Please see response to CCC Comment 21.
CCC Comment 34
2.103 Further information is required on the interim measures to upgrade the cycle way between the site and Cambridge to encourage travel by sustainable measures?
MB Response
2.104 Please see response to CCC Comment 21.
CCC Comment 35
2.105 12.34. A monitoring scheme has now been proposed by the developers to ensure that rat running through the local villages is minimised and mitigated. CCC agree that this is necessary. The monitoring plan in Figure 12.5 is agreed in principle although a few amendments need to be made to include an ATC on St Neots Road to the north of Hardwick, and others detailed below.
MB Response
2.106 An updated monitoring plan is contained in Appendix D
CCC Comment 36
2.107 12.37. Currently the monitoring plan states than ANPR surveys will be undertaken if the ATC’s show that there is a 5% or more change to the traffic flows. This is to determine whether the traffic is as a result of the Bourn Airfield development. This is not agreed. The reason some of the traffic flows may be diverting through alternative routes could be due to the Bourn Airfield traffic using up capacity at the existing junctions along
Page 21 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Madingley Road for example and therefore making existing traffic divert and rat run through villages where they would not have previously done so. If there is a 5% change or more CCC should be able to draw upon the developer funding to implement traffic calming etc.
MB Response
2.108 Accepted.
CCC Comment 37
2.109 Confirmation of the mitigation measures are needed within the TA so they can then go on to form the basis of the S106/ S278s.
MB Response
2.110 An updated table is provided in Table 2.10.
Page 22 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Measure When to be Provided Description Eastern and Western Prior to 1st occupation of the To form a condition of development development access relevant phase To form a condition of development to provide a route for buses between the Delivery of the Busway Prior to early stages of western and eastern access positions with within the development occupation land dedicated on the northern boundary for the delivery of the draft GCP preferred route Contribution towards Phased Payments to be the Strategic Public - confirmed Transport Route To be delivered from 1st This will form a combination of directly occupation in a Phased Delivery of Public developer delivered services to the Manner, subject to a Public Transport Services Science Park and Addenbrookes Hospital Transport Strategy within the development and contributions as required to the referenced in the S106 scheduled services to Cambridge Agreement Provision of Free Travel to residents to Upon each residents initial To form a condition of development, with create a culture of occupation of the a budget cap contained in the S106 travel by non-car development Agreement means The Cycle improvement Fund to be payable on a Phased Basis from 1st Delivery of wider occupation, with the delivery Agreement to the findings of the Cycle improvements to the of the Cycle Crossing at the Audit to be agreed prior to 1st occupation Cycle Network Cambridge Crossroads to be delivered prior to 100TH occupation The Local Footpath Improvement Fund to be payable on a Phased Basis Delivery of wider from 1st occupation, with the Agreement to the findings of the Walking improvements to the delivery of the Cycle Audit to be agreed prior to 1st occupation Footpath Network Crossing at the Cambridge Crossroads to be delivered prior to 1st occupation A requirement to operate the Agreement to the Travel Plan to form a Travel Plan Measures agreed Travel Plan from 1st pre-occupation requirement of the occupation development The proposed monitoring Th monitoring plan will be included in the which will form a condition of S106 Agreement, including the trip rate Monitoring development is contained in and the additional measures if the trip rate the TA target is exceeded. (i) Cap on Use of the Broadway/St Neots Road junction Monitoring Mitigation (ii) Revisions to Bus lane To form part of the Monitoring Mitigation Measures at the M11 Junction (iii) Traffic Calming to avoid rat running
Table 2.10: Summary of the Mitigation Package
Page 23 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
3 Comments Raised by Highways DM
3.1 This section of the report sets out the comments raised by Highways DM in the response dated February 2020 and the responses to each comment raised by Mayer Brown (MB).
3.2 The Highways DM notes that ‘Much of the information provided is, in keeping with an outline application, high level and relatively generic, which makes commenting on specific items difficult, however, there are elements where more detail has been provided and some of these are of concern and should be amended accordingly.’
HDM Comment 1
3.3 The proposed detail of the western access, Dwg. No. CPBOURNACCESS(WESTERN) IP3. This is an awkward ‘half way house’ drawing while the layout may be acceptable in principle the detail has yet to be confirmed. I would therefore, seek that if planning permission is granted this drawing is referred to as being indicative only and subject to detailed design.
MB Response
3.4 It would be proposed that the planning condition would reference the status of CPBOURNACCESS(WESTERN) IP3 as confirmed in principal. This would also be combined with the condition relating to the use of Highways England Land as stated in the response to CCC Comment 20.
HDM Comment 2
3.5 Within Chapter 6 ‘Movement Strategy’ of the Design and Access Statement there are a number of cross sections that may create future problems. I appreciate that these may well be considered indicative, but it is easy for these to become accepted design criteria for the future:
i. Fig. 70: From the cross section provided this appears to be a very wide space with no obvious routes for pedestrians to use to cross the same. The proposed ‘shared use’ areas are clearly not as they have an associated footway, thus providing clear segregation between highway users. At 4.8m wide these are too narrow for the Highway Authority to adopt and may engender feelings of relative insecurity for pedestrians as they are passed by motor vehicles even at low speeds.
Page 24 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
MB Response
3.6 The application is Outline. The reserved matters applications can ensure that the final details of the internal road system are resolved.
ii. Fig. 71: While accepting that swales are a useful SuDs feature they do create problems in terms of crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists. Any crossing points should be bridges and not culverts. The use of the swale infers that the carriageways will be draining unidirectional (side hung) and not with a chamber. This will not in principle be acceptable to the Highway Authority.
iii. Fig 72: Again the proposed carriageway appears to be side hung, and no details of how the swale will be crossed have been provided.
MB Response
3.7 The reserved matters application will ensure that the crossing points of swales in term of the detail and regularity meet the requirements of the Local Highway Authority for adoption.
MB Response
iv. Fig. 75: The Highway Authority will not seek to adopt this style of road as the carriageway is too narrow and needs to be a minimum of 5m.
MB Response
3.8 The developer will determine which roads, they wish to put forward for adoption and consequently provide final designs which accord with adoptable standards.
v. Fig. 76: The proposed shared use area is too narrow (see point i. above) and will not provide sufficient space to enable a private motor vehicle to manoeuvre into the proposed parking spaces (this should be a minimum of 6m).
MB Response
3.9 The reserved matters application will provide details of the roads for adoption in accordance with the CCC criteria.
vi. Fig 77. This is a very narrow street and is border line hazardous for cyclists where a motor vehicle drivers believes there is sufficient space to pass and there is not.
MB Response
3.10 This matter will be considered as part of the reserved matters application.
Page 25 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
HDM Comment 3
3.11 Most the proposed Tertiary Street Dimensions appears to be based on those within Manuals for Streets, which are in turn based on those published in DB32 which dates to 1977. Cars have become wider in the last 43 years mostly due to the introduction of side impact bars and other safety features. This should be amended.
MB Response
3.12 The final internal road design will be in accordance with the relevant standards.
HDM Comment 5
3.13 The developer should refer to the Highways DM regarding the requirement for a TRO to achieve the prevention of rat running through banned turns left on the Broadway (as per the local plan)
MB Response
3.14 As part of the process of obtaining Technical Approval for the Western Access Junction, an application for a TRO will be made to restrict movements to and from the Broadway South and also to restrict U turning Movements at the Broadway/St Neots Road junction.
HDM Comment 6
3.15 The developer needs to look at providing some sort of mechanism to prevent cars u turning at the Broadway/ Old A428 (St Neots Road) junction. This is a key issue from members that needs to be addressed. Proposed measures should be submitted.
MB Response
3.16 This matter has been addressed in response to CCC Comment 19.
Page 26 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
4 Comments Raised by CCC Cycling Officer
4.1 This section of the report sets out the comments raised by the CCC Cycling Officer in the response dated February 2020 and the responses to each comment raised by Mayer Brown (MB).
4.2 The CCC Cycling officer has noted that these comments should be read in conjunction with comments from Highways DM and the GCP team to come to a suitable conclusion.
CO Comment 1
4.3 There are concerns about the geometry and dimensions of the cycle route entry/exit point at Childerley Gate. The roundabout geometry is such that motor vehicles can enter at speed. This was perhaps more appropriate when the road was first designed, prior to the new A428. Cycling officers require the applicant to look at options for improving cycle access at this access whilst maintaining the capacity for vehicles. Crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists should be accommodated on Highfields Road and other arms. The cycling route should also be set back from the carriageway edge by at least 2m or such that it complies with current guidance (IAN 195/16, or the soon to be released DfT document). This may involve piping or relocating a ditch.
MB Response
4.4 The Cycle Proposals keep the cyclists to the south side of the roundabout junction, where the flows both current and projected are limited. The measures provided are the maximum deliverable within the highway’s boundary.
CO Comment 2
4.5 There are similar concerns where the HQPT track adjoins the highway. The cycle route should be set back or radii reduced.
MB Response
4.6 It is proposed that there will be a condition requiring the delivery of the HQPT through the development prior to 1st occupation and submissions will be required to CCC and the GCP in relation to final details.
CO Comment 3
4.7 More generally, all routes in the final development should comply with contemporary guidance in respect of both highway infrastructure and residential cycle parking. SCDC
Page 27 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
have cycle parking standards which should be adhered to, and the core principle of making cycling and walking the obvious and most convenient choice built into all designs.
MB Response
4.8 The principal of this is agreed and punctuates the submission. All reserved matters applications for buildings within the development will be required to demonstrate the provision of cycle parking within standards.
Page 28 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
5 Comments Raised by Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP)
5.1 This section of the report sets out the comments raised by the GCP in the response dated February 2020 and the responses to each comment raised by Mayer Brown (MB).
5.2 The GCP has noted that full comments have been put together by GCP below and these should be referred to. CCC require the development to do the following aspects. i) Contribute an agreed amount towards the GCP scheme between Cambourne and Cambridge. ii) Facilitate and deliver a route through the Bourn airfield development site that ties in with the wider GCP scheme. iii) The proposals should allow for a scheme that the GCP team is satisfied with.
5.3 These comments should be read in conjunction with comments on original submission on behalf of the GCP dated received on 23 November 2018.
Overview
GCP Comment 1
5.4 The applicant has submitted an updated/amended package of information to demonstrate compliance with the current Local Plan (2018) policies, particularly SS/7 (Land at Bourn Airfield), which was adopted after the submission of the application, and more recently the adopted Bourn Airfield New Village SPD (October 2019).
5.5 It is acknowledged that the proposal description has not changed and still seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved. However, the original parameter plans, which are for formal determination at this stage, have been updated/amended. It is important therefore that the parameter plans and illustrative masterplan provide adequate provision for integration of the BPT route within the development.
MB Response
5.6 Noted
Parameter Plans
GCP Comment 2
5.7 As expressed in the last consultation representation, the GCP are generally supportive of the outline application and the inclusion of the BPT route within the parameter plans that accompany the planning application submission. In addition, the GCP are supportive
Page 29 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
of the provision for bus stops to be located within the development. The establishment of the bus stops will assist in ensuring sustainable use of the transport route early on within the proposed development and assist with the delivery of the High-Quality Public Transport Service (HQPT).
Route Alignment/Connection point at St Neots Road
5.8 The route alignment for the HQPT on the Access and Movement Parameter Plan (rev M) has been amendment slightly where it approaches the Bourn roundabout. The BPT is shown spurring north towards the northern boundary before the roundabout. This amendment reflects the general direction of the route that our highway consultant’s showed on their drawing that was submitted with our previous comments (dwg no. 5020059_HW_FS_169, Rev B in Appendix B).
5.9 On review of dwg no. 5020059_HW_FS_169, Rev B in Appendix B the sharp (25m) radii on the safeguarded route should work, but it will need curve widening on both sides to ensure that public transport vehicles can safely pass one another. We’d welcome discussion with countryside for a minor amendment to the plan to address this.
MB Response
5.10 A minor amendment to this plan will be made for the purpose of inclusion within the S106 Agreement.
GCP Comment 3
5.11 Positive discussions have been held with Highway’s England (landowners of the land to the north- east) regarding the route to the north of the roundabout. The delivery of this route is reliant upon consent/land purchase from Highway’s England. If this route cannot be delivered then the fall-back option for a segregated route via the Bourn roundabout would need to be provided, to ensure that the BPT and buses are not subject to queuing on the roundabout.
MB Response
5.12 The application has shown illustratively how priority for buses can be given at the eastern and western junctions. Clearly the development can only deliver within land under its control and within the highway’s boundary. In that context the illustrative plans within the application show priority for buses to be provided within the development.
5.13 Notwithstanding the above, the submission clearly shows with the full development limited queuing at the eastern roundabout.
Page 30 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
GCP Comment 4
5.14 The route alignment/ connection at the eastern access will need to be updated to reflect both alignments on the plan; 1) the alignment needed for the route to pass around the back of Childerley lodge, and 2) to also reflect the need for safeguarding of land on approach to the Bourn roundabout, to ensure that the BRT route can be accommodated through the junction if this is deemed to be a deliverable solution. Both options would need to be secured as part of the Secrion106 agreement. Provided that the heads of terms for this are agreed between parties, the GCP would be happy for the detail within the Section106 to be considered after the proposals have received a resolution to grant planning permission.
MB Response
5.15 We note that this can be dealt with through the S106 Agreement, through the provision of an agreed safeguarding plan.
GCP Comment 5
5.16 Any works that cannot be tied into the S106 should be agreed within a bilateral agreement.
MB Response
5.17 Noted.
GCP Comment 6
Width of Land Required
5.18 In our discussions with the applicant, it has been agreed that the width of the BPT route will be minimum of 15 metres. Nevertheless, this should be secured in a suitably worded condition or tied into the S106 agreement to ensure it is delivered.
MB Response
5.19 This is accepted and a safeguarded plan can form part of the agreement. For the 1st section of the road adjacent to the Broadway a narrower corridor is provided to accommodate the development access and cycleway.
GCP Comment 7
5.20 The updated Access and Movement Parameter plan shows, running alongside the HQPT, an ‘Indicative Key Strategic Pedestrian/Cycle Link’ which loops the site. However,
Page 31 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
it is unclear if this link is in addition to the Strategic Cycle Way for the HQPT or separate. Clarification on this should be sought.
MB Response
5.21 Alongside the HQPT this would form part of the Strategic Cycleway, but it would connect with the cycleways within the development at the eastern and western ends.
Transport Assessment
5.22 The following sections summarise the findings of reviewing the Revised Transport Assessment (dated December 2019 and additional information submitted by Mayer Brown for the Bourn Airfield planning application). The review has been undertaken on behalf of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) and considers the implications of the Bourn Airfield development on the Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) Public Transport Route only and not the wider impacts of the proposals.
GCP Comment 8
Trip Generation Assumptions
5.23 The assessment assumes that 40% of the employment land area detailed in the planning application description is building floor area. This is less than the 60% used by Cambourne West. It would be advisable for the percentage used to be evidenced to ensure that the trip generation associated with the employment area is representative.
AND
GCP Comment 9
5.24 The employment trip generation assumes that 37.5% of the total employment quantum is B8 for the purpose of determining trip rates. It should be noted that the description of the planning application does not refer to B8 use class, and therefore we would recommend that these trips be assigned to B1a, B1b or B1c. This is advisable to ensure that the development trips and associated impacts on the site accesses and local junctions are representative.
MB Response
5.25 The Trip Generation for the Employment uses has been accepted by CCC. It is noted that the application seeks approval for 1,500sqm of employment uses but the modelling has tested 26,544sqm of employment use to a) allow for other employment within the allocation and b) to provide a contingency.
Page 32 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
5.26 In that context a) the split between B1, B2 and B8 applied allows for B2 and B8 which may come forward as part of a separate application. It is noted that the current approved employment within the allocation is for 16,914sqm of B2/B8 part of which currently exists.
5.27 Therefore a) there is a higher proportion of B2/B8 then has been tested and b) 40% more employment than forms part of the application or is part of the employment within the site has been tested. Noting that no existing traffic movements from the employment within Bourn Airfield have been removed from the network.
GCP Comment 10
Distribution of Trips
5.28 The residential/ employment trips assume 12-15% of trips will remain within Bourn Airfield, with another 12% travelling to Cambourne and Cambourne West. This means 27% of trips will remain local to the proposed site and within Cambourne.
AND
GCP Comment 11
5.29 The proposed employment use at Bourn is shown to be similar in scale to that proposed at Cambourne West. The Cambourne West Transport Assessment applied a more conservative internalisation factor of 4% to account for trips traveling within the development itself and 8% for trips travelling within Cambourne. At the time of the Census, the travel to work trips travelling between Cambourne and Bourn Village accounted for approximately 3-4% trips. There is the potential that the Bourn TA is over estimating internalisation of trips within the site and the proportion travelling to Cambourne.
MB Response
5.30 As acknowledged in Para 3.29 of Technical Note 04 of the Cambourne West consent, the employment uses tested included those within Cambourne in its entirety which had note come forward at the time. Therefore, the first statement in GCP Comment 10 is not quite correct since it compares employment within Cambourne in totality with that within the Bourn Allocation.
5.31 Therefore, a total internalisation factor similar to that assessed for the Cambourne West application for Cambourne as a whole is appropriate.
5.32 The 12% internalisation figure is a conservative figure if you consider two factors:
Page 33 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
The current application estimate is that around 1100 to 1400 jobs will be available within Bourn Airfield (employment area, schools, hotel, retail and leisure uses) This compares with an projected economically active figure of 55.9% of residents in the Bourn Ward. The jobs estimate excludes people working from home. The 12% estimate is comparable to Cambourne census data. The current census data show 6.5% of people working from home.
5.33 An internalisation rate of 12% has been applied to residential work trips and 12% of external work trips will travel to Cambourne according to census origin-destination data by place of work for those working in Cambourne. This equates to 22.6% of all residential trips as the 12% for Cambourne is only applied to work trips leaving the development.
GCP Comment 12
5.34 It would be advisable that Mayer Brown provide details of the total internalisation factor applied in a similar way to that presented for Cambourne West. Cambourne West identified total internalisation factors of 14% and 17% for the AM and PM peaks respectively.
MB Response
5.35 The internalisation rates applied by journey purpose for the Bourn Airfield application are shown in Table 5.1 below. These Internalisation rates were confirmed in the CCC response dated 19th March 2018. Trip Purpose Internalisation Work 12% Primary School 85% Secondary School 85% Schools Staff 0% Leisure 0% Retail 50% Other 0% Table 5.1: Final Internalisation Factors
5.36 CCC the education authority confirmed that the school within Bourn Airfield was for Bourn Airfield residents whereas ‘Technical Note 12 rev A’ of the Cambourne West consent, assumed an externalisation of education trips.
5.37 The appropriate comparison is the surveyed internalisation at Bourn Airfield with that surveyed at Cambourne using the October/November 2019 and February 2020 surveys which monitored: Residential trips Non-residential land use trips
Page 34 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Cambourne entry and exit flows
5.38 These surveys showed internalisation rates which are considerably higher than those used in the Bourn Airfield assessment. Table 5.2 shows the internalisation of trips in Cambourne, determined by dividing the surveys at the individual land uses by the external flows.
AM Peak PM Peak Arr Dep Arr Dep Residential (Oct/Nov 2019 Surveys) 572 1,760 1,804 836 Employment (Feb 2020 Surveys) 480 43 60 412 Retail Surveyed (Feb 2020 Surveys) 733 123 479 494 PFS (Feb 2020 Surveys) 97 87 101 101 Local Retail Trips (TRICS) 26 26 31 39 Hotel Surveyed (Feb 2020 Surveys) 34 28 32 33 Total 1,942 2,067 2,507 1,915 Surveyed Total External Flows 936 1,358 1,552 1,052 Difference -1,006 -709 -955 -863 Calculated Cambourne Internalisation (excluding schools) 52% 34% 38% 45% Bourn residential Internalisation (excluding schools) 25% 25% 24% 24% Table 5.2: Comparison of Internalisation Rates for Cambourne
5.39 This shows that the internalisation of trips tested within Bourn Airfield is considerably higher than that recorded within Cambourne.
5.40 Furthermore, a comparison of the projected flows at the Madingley Mulch roundabout demonstrates that the Bourn Airfield distribution presents a much more robust assessment of the Madingley Road Corridor. The development trips at the Madingley Mulch for the Bourn Airfield development are shown in Figure 5.1 and the development trips for Cambourne West are shown in Figure 5.2. The Cambourne West development trips are extracted from Figures 1.12 and 1.13 for Appendix M to the TPA TA dated November 2016.
269 173 0 269 0 0 0 173 0 0 00 0 00 0
Madingley` Madingley` 0 Mulch 0 Mulch 0 0 00A1303 00A1303 88 88 370 370 AM PM 0 0 Figure 5.1: Bourn Airfield Development Flows at Madingley Mulch Roundabout
Page 35 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
AM PM
Figure 5.2: West Cambourne Development Flows at Madingley Mulch Roundabout
5.41 A pro-rata exercise for the development trips tested on the Madingley Road corridor is shown in Table 5.3. This compares the tested development trips with a pro-rata increase of the traffic flows included in Appendix M of the West Cambourne TA (Cambourne West – 2350 dwellings vs Bourn Airfield – 3500 dwellings)
AM Peak PM Peak Arr Dep Arr Dep Bourn Airfield Tested Development Trips 88 269 370 173 Cambourne West Proposed Development Traffic Flows 37 175 151 53 Pro-Rata Bourn Airfield Proposed Development Traffic Flows 55 261 225 79 Difference +33 +8 +145 +94 Table 5.3: Pro-Rata Development Flows Tested on the Madingley Road Corridor
5.42 The above demonstrates the trips tested on the Madingley Road corridor are robust.
GCP Comment 13
5.43 Variations in the trip generation and distribution assumptions identified for the development could lead to different impacts on the site accesses and local junctions which could have implications for the BPT operation.
MB Response
5.44 These points have been discussed with both CCC and Highways England, the applied trip rates and distribution were demonstrated to provide a robust assessment of the local junctions and the SRN.
5.45 A comparative assessment of Cambourne existing flows and Bourn Airfield projected flows pro-rata has been undertaken and provided to CCC. The findings are contained in Table 5.4 below, which demonstrates that even without the effect of mitigation less trips than assessed would be anticipated from Bourn Airfield.
Page 36 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Bourn Airfield Bourn Airfield Difference at Madingley Difference Pro-Rata Tested Road/M11 Junction AM Arrivals 270 521 -251 -42 AM Departures 937 957 -20 -6 PM Arrivals 925 1,203 -278 -58 PM Departures 465 677 -212 -74 Table 5.4: Peak Direction Flow Comparison of Bourn Pro-Rata Flows and Tested Flows
GCP Comment 14
Western Access
5.46 The western access has been modelled utilising LinSig, which is the industry standard for assessing signalised junctions. The Public Transport Route trip assumptions assume 30 passenger car unit (pcus) which is the equivalent of 15 buses per hour travelling in each direction during the AM and PM peaks.
5.47 The junction is shown to be well within capacity, although the Public Transport Route is shown to experience a 50 second delay per pcu (the equivalent of 100 seconds per bus). This delay is unlikely to materialise in reality as the signals at this junction will be demand responsive to vehicles approaching on the Public Transport Route and therefore will be given priority over other vehicles through the junction. Public transport vehicle detection should therefore be secured via condition or obligation to ensure that delays on the Public Transport Route are minimised.
MB Response
5.48 Noted
GCP Comment 15
Eastern Access (St Neots Road/ Wellington Way)
5.49 The Transport Assessment shows the eastern access roundabout to operate within theoretical capacity in the AM peak, and over theoretical capacity with an RFC of 89% and a maximum queue length of 6 pcus during the PM peak.
5.50 This analysis is based on a flat traffic flow profile and equal lane usage on all approaches to the roundabout. It would be advisable for the junction to also be run in advanced mode to understand how the roundabout performs with traffic flows allocated to the appropriate lane approaches.
AND
Page 37 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
GCP Comment 16
5.51 Having reviewed the observed traffic flows through the junction during the AM and PM peaks there is variability of between 10 to 30 pcus between each 15- minute period. Therefore, it would be advisable to also run the model with a onehour flow profile to understand how the model performs with variation in flow over the hour peaks.
5.52 The above assessment would indicate the robustness of the assessment presented and help to determine how sensitive the model is to variations in traffic flows. This will help to inform whether the proposed junction is suitable for accommodating C2C public transport vehicles traveling through the junction, or whether they will be subject to delay which could impact on the efficacy and attractiveness of the services. Should this analysis suggest that delays will occur then re-design work should be sought to minimise public transport delays.
MB Response
5.53 These points were addressed in response to CCC Comment 15. As explained in paragraphs 2.41 to 2.45, the junction has been tested using a direct flow profile using the surveyed flows to analyse the junction. Furthermore, the junction was assessed in advanced mode using lane simulation to ensure a robust assessment of the junction. The results of the cumulative assessment are shown in Table 2.6 and demonstrate that the junction operated under capacity.
GCP Comment 17
Scotland Road/ A428 Dumbbells
5.54 Technical Notes 12 and 14 provide the junction capacity assessment for the Scotland Road/ A428 junction, which shows that all arms remain within capacity with the development flow included. The Junction 9 outputs are not appended to the report or submission and therefore it is not possible to corroborate the results. We request these outputs be provided for review.
MB Response
5.55 Both Highways England and CCC have confirmed this junction operates within capacity.
GCP Comment 18
Broadway/ St Neots Road Junction
5.56 Technical Note 4 refers to the junction remaining within capacity, although Technical Note 18 which details the assessment of this junction has not been provided in the latest
Page 38 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
transport submission to CCC, neither have the junction capacity model outputs. Therefore, we have been unable to corroborate these findings. It is understood that this junction will be subject to a monitor and manage approach through the build out of the development. This junction does not form part of the C2C Public Transport Route at this stage. However, this may need to be a consideration depending on the CAM route requirements and whether for CAM vehicles would have to travel via this junction to travel to Cambourne to/from the western access.
MB Response
5.57 The CAM vehicles won’t need to use this junction, since there is a connection from Cambourne through the Broadway to the development to be provided. Notwithstanding this point a cap on the amount of development traffic than can use the St Neots Road/Broadway junction is proposed to keep the RFC below 0.85.
GCP Comment 19
Madingley Mulch Roundabout
5.58 Madingley Mulch is subject to queuing currently, although the Transport Assessment and Technical Notes refer to this as being a result of vehicles queuing on the A1303 Madingley Road into Cambridge and blocking back. Therefore, the performance of the junction has been considered in isolation and as a result is shown to be within capacity if the blocking back didn’t occur due to the limitations of junction capacity models. This is a reasonable approach.
MB Response
5.59 Noted.
GCP Comment 20
Cambridge Road Crossroads and Madingley Road corridor
5.60 The Transport Assessment refers to the impacts at these junctions being mitigated by the C2C scheme. These have not been considered by GCP in any significant detail at this stage and the developer should demonstrate this.
MB Response
5.61 The objective of the GCP proposal is to relieve congestion on the Madingley Road corridor into Cambridge. The submission has demonstrated that a modal transfer much less than has been projected from studies to date would relieve congestion.
Page 39 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
GCP Comment 21
Mitigation
5.62 In order to account for the Travel Plan, bus and cycle strategies for the development the mode shift of 12% has been assumed for work and shopping journeys to and from selected Cambridge zones to account for a reduction in car trips and transfer to public transport and cycle trips for. This leads to a reduction in 25 departures during the AM and 32 arrivals during the PM.
5.63 To ensure that the traffic generation and the mitigation targets for the development are achieved it is recommended that arrivals and departures from each site access are monitored, and in the event that traffic generation exceeds that targeted and assessed as part of the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, that additional measures are implemented to reduce traffic flows and encourage use of sustainable modes. This mechanism should be secured via condition or obligation. This is particularly important for C2C public transport vehicles utilising the eastern access given the constrained nature of the roundabout design proposed and any increases in traffic above those tested are likely to cause additional delays and queuing.
MB Response
5.64 Noted.
Section 106 Agreement
GCP Comment 22
5.65 The Section 106 Agreement has not been updated. The GCP therefore reinforces its support for the inclusion of the delivery of the BPT route within the draft heads of terms. As highlighted previously, the key matter for the GCP is securing the timescale and mechanism for the delivery of the route. The GCP anticipates the completion of the strategic route by 2024.
MB Response
5.66 Noted.
GCP Comment 23
5.67 Any matters that are outside the consideration of the application should be dealt with through a bilateral agreement. The GCP therefore welcomes the opportunity to discuss the requirements for the BPT with the applicant.
Page 40 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
MB Response
5.68 Noted.
Conclusion
GCP Comment 24
5.69 The GCP welcomes the applicant’s commitment towards making provision for and delivering of (as part of the development phase and secured by condition or in the S106) a section of the corridor through the application site which will need updating in the amended Access and Movement Parameter Plan. The GCP would also like to see the fall-back option, which has been agreed with the applicant, secured as part of a suitably worded condition or tied into the S106 and land safeguarded to ensure access and the route alignment through the junction can be achieved. GCP have some concerns over the internalisation assumptions applied to the trip generation and the performance of the eastern access and have therefore requested additional assessments to be provided. This is to provide assurances over the sensitivity of the junction performance to changes in traffic flow should this differ from the outputs provided. In addition, GCP suggest that monitoring be secured to ensure that the vehicular trip generation tested through the Transport Assessment and committed to through the Travel Plan is achieved.
MB Response
5.70 Noted.
Page 41 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
6 Comments Raised by the Asset Information Definitive Map Team (PROW)
6.1 This section of the report sets out the comments raised by the Asset Information Definitive Map Team (PROW) in the response dated February 2020 and the responses to each comment raised by Mayer Brown (MB).
6.2 AIDMT noted that much of these comments remain as previously as the PROW officer didn’t feel their comments had been adequately addressed, or they needed to remain in case permission was granted.
PROW Comment 1
6.3 The redevelopment of Bourn Airfield provides an opportunity to reconnect and enhance the existing right of way network which has not previously been possible during the time of the Airfield’s operation. We welcome the proposals to create the proposed pedestrian and cycle links as part of the development, as they meet the requirements of the County Council’s adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan to create links with new and existing communities. Providing improved rights of way infrastructure also encourages healthy lifestyles, in line with national and local policies on both physical and mental health and well-being, including those of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board. We are however disappointed that no indication has been made that off-road, leisure and utility routes will be designed and made available to all Non-Motorised Users (MNUs), including equestrian users. We would therefore object to the proposals as they currently stand and therefore place a Holding Objection to allow the applicant to address these issues.
MB Response
6.4 The Movement Parameter Plan is shown below in Figure 6.1. This shows clearly that a network of bridleways is to be provided as requested.
Page 42 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
Figure 6.1: Access and Movement Parameter Plan
PROW Comment 2
6.5 We would emphasise the importance of ensuring that good soft-user infrastructure is in place before residents and community facilities. Experience from other major developments where community facilities were created before infrastructure was in place showed that people quickly fell into poor habits, becoming reliant on their own private cars rather than walking or cycling. This is strongly evidenced by a report entitled ‘Lessons from Cambourne’ in 2007, which is particularly pertinent as Cambourne is adjacent to this site. This report stated:
“There is a lack of connection to surrounding villages and Cambourne is poorly integrated into the surrounding countryside. 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.”
6.6 We expect this site to learn the lessons from Cambourne and ensure good NMU links are provided to surrounding villages, and that these links are delivered well in advanced of any occupation.
6.7 Unfortunately, it does not appear that this submission has adequately evaluated the needs of all NMU users, including equestrians when coming to this proposal. No reference at all is made to off-highway routes being made available to all NMU users,
Page 43 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
choosing rather to make reference to ‘Pedestrian/Cycleway’ links across the site. It therefore does not appear that this submission has met several local policies with regard to NMU provision
MB Response
6.8 The submission has considered upgrades to the surrounding network through a Cycle Improvement Fund and Pedestrian Footpath improvement Fund. It would be proposed that off-site enhancements to the Bridleway network are identified in the pedestrian improvement fund.
PROW Comment 3
6.9 The County Council’s adopted statutory Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) contains an assessment of the extent to which the local rights of way network meets the present and likely future needs of the public, including the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and enjoyment and the accessibility of local rights of way network to new residents. Within the ROWIP there are a number of Statements of Action (SOA) which priorities specific issues to be addressed and potential solutions and improvements which could be made.
6.10 The relevant SOAs in this instance include: SOA2 (5) ‘Enable increased access to PROW to facilitate healthy lifestyles.’ SOA3 (1) ‘Ensure that RoW are protected from inappropriate use during development and that new facilities are provided to a good standard.’ SOA3 (3) ‘Liaise with planners and developers to provide new countryside access provision to link new development into an enhanced network catering for increased population. To include new routes, status upgrades, improved facilities and improved information, signage and interpretation.’ SOA5 (3) ‘Prioritise bridleway improvements on grounds that bridleway users currently suffer highest risk on roads and bridleway network is currently most disjointed. Ensure that bridleway improvements have least possible effect on pedestrians so as to maximise benefit to widest user community, subject to available funding. Support alternative mechanisms of delivery where necessary.’
6.11 The ROWIP would therefore strongly support the delivery of an upgraded Public Right of Way network across the Bourn development. The provision of Bridleways instead of cycleways, where appropriate, would also satisfy the aims of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy. A copy of the ROWIP and Health and Wellbeing Strategy can be found on our website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-
Page 44 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan/ and https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/jsna/health-and-wellbeing-strategy/ respectively.
MB Response
6.12 This has been addressed in response to PROW Comment 1.
Request for improvement to the Rights of Way network
PROW Comment 4
6.13 The improvements listed below would allow the communities of the new settlement to have better direct links to communities further afield such as Bourn, Cambourne, Highfields Caldecote, Hardwick and Caxton. These improvements when connected to the developer’s proposed on-site routes would create an opportunity for a greater circular route in and out of the proposed site for those wishing to take a longer recreational route beyond the new settlement. Research has strongly shown that people want circular routes for many day-to-day purposes such as dog-walking, health walks and running. These improvements would significantly add to the health and wellbeing of both communities and users from further afield in accordance with the policies noted above. These improvements should be secured directly through a planning condition in the first instance or through appropriate S106 obligations. The County Council supports the provision of well-established green routes throughout the development. The County Council recommends that the most strategic routes be recorded as Public Rights of Way with the expectation that other connecting routes within the site would remain privately maintainable. This approach has been successfully implemented in Cambourne and at Northstowe. The Masterplan for Cambourne included the provision of new public rights of way which are almost complete. This was an important blueprint and the County Council requests that the Bourn Masterplan be amended to include PROW along the lines suggested. The PROW network should become an integral part of the development and enhanced, directional signage will need to be incorporated into the development to ensure that future residents are aware of the network available. This could also include the installation of interpretation boards (which can link to wildlife and biodiversity aims) and sufficient inclusion within resident travel plans. Off-site NMU improvements should be considered to improve links from and improvement to long-distance paths such as the Pathfinder Long Distance Walk, Harcamlow Way and Wimpole Way (see https://www.visitcambridge.org/things-to-
Page 45 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
do/sport-and-leisure/walking). If improvements cannot be directly secured by the developer then financial contributions should be considered in lieu of this. It is noted that the Masterplan indicates several green routes around the perimeter of the site. There should be an aspiration for establishing a circular perimeter route of Bridleway status around the development. This infrastructure is proving to be highly successful in other large scale developments in Cambridgeshire such as Cambourne If the northern expressway route takes the form of a busway construction, then any adjacent maintenance track should be dedicated to a Bridleway status, similar to what has been successfully implemented for the Cambridge to St Ives Busway.
MB Response
6.14 Noted.
PROW Comment
6.15 It is noted that NMU links are envisaged between the south of the site and Public Bridleway No. 15. Whilst this is welcomed, there is no reason why this should not be inclusive of all NMUs including equestrians. Therefore, this route should be created with the status of Bridleway, enabling it to connect the existing Rights of Way network and the proposed circular route detailed above. The development should provide a green infrastructure scheme, setting out what mitigations and enhancements the development proposes both on and off-site. This should set out the principles of what routes will be promoted and general standards set on the routes alignments, surfacing, boundary treatments and status. Guidance on the integration of public rights of way into a development is available on the County Council’s website at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/libraries-leisure-&-culture/arts-green- spaces-&-activities/rights-of-way/
MB Response
6.16 With reference to Figure 6.1, this matter is agreed.
PROW Comment 6
6.17 This scheme should be delivered as part of a reserved matters application and should be secured by S106 or condition. The Cambourne Master Design Guide provides a model example of the detail that could have been provided at this outline stage (see Appendix A) for a green infrastructure scheme.
Page 46 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
MB Response
6.18 Noted.
PROW Comment 7
6.19 The County Council’s Asset Information Definitive Map Team therefore requests a Holding Objection on this planning application for the reasons cited above. If you are minded to allow this application, the County Council requests that the following condition is included in the planning permission.
Prior to the commencement of development, a green infrastructure scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA in consultation with the LHA. Such scheme shall include provision for:
i. the design of amenity and public rights of way routes and their surfacing, widths, gradients, landscaping and structures within the development and on the fringe connecting with other communities
ii. any proposals for diversion and closure of public rights of way and alternative route provision
Reason: In the interests of the health, amenity and safety of the public.
6.20 We strongly encourage the applicant to contact the County Council’s Asset Information Definitive Map team to agree improvements to the next submission in respect of public rights of way.
6.21 The County Council’s Asset Information Definitive Map team are willing to assist the developer during the design stage to understand the needs and aspirations of the Public Rights of Way network in this area. The Transport Assessment team will progress any further discussion, in consultation with the Asset Information team, with regard to S106 and conditions.
MB Response
6.22 It is noted that the Rights of Way team accept that a condition can be provided.
Page 47 Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd Bourn Airfield (Reference S/3440/18/OL), South Cambridgeshire Technical Note 21: Response to Comments Received from Cambridgeshire County Council (reference 1555)
7 Conclusions
7.1 It is considered that all matters relevant to the status of the application have been addressed and where appropriate requirements for items to form conditions or S106 requirements have been confirmed.
Page 48
APPENDIX A: Accident Records
Cambridgeshire County Council
Scale (at A3): 1:35606 Centred at: 535763,260023 Date: 08/04/2020 By: ff386 © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 OS 100023205 Use of this data is subject to terms and conditions: https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/terms-and-disclaimer Date Police_ref Easting Northing Severity Road_condVisibility Casualties PedestrianCycles P2W OAPs Children Manoeuvr Time Vehicles Roadclass1Roadnum1Road_TypeSpeed_LimJunct_det Junct_ctrl Roadclass2Roadnum2Cross_ctrl Cross_fac Weather SpCond Carr_haz Day Location Local_AuthReportedAParish 20170705 17202047 529605 260694 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 16:00 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 50 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 4. WednesCAMBRIDGE070000122. No ‐ acc 177 20170718 17203730 529671 260667 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 17:20 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayA428 AT JNE070000122. No ‐ acc 70 20171124 17246038 529698 260674 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000100. No turn 16:10 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 40 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 6. Friday A428 AT JNE070000122. No ‐ acc 70 20180306 18276247 529655 260655 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 2000100. No turn 15:09 4 3. A 428 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayCAMBRIDGE070000121. Yes 70 20180421 18287634 529673 260667 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000100. No turn 16:55 3 3. A 428 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 7. SaturdayCAMBRIDGE070000121. Yes 70 20180619 18306519 531777 260188 2. Serious 1. Dry 4. Darknes 4000000. No turn 00:59 1 3. A 428 1. Roundab 70 1. Roundab2. Automa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayA428 AT JNE070000121. Yes 0 20180723 18318356 529590 260668 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000002. Right tu 12:07 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 8. Central 1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayCAXTON G E070000121. Yes 0 20181211 18808893 529592 260667 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 11:35 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 70 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 8. Central 1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayST NEOTS E070000121. Yes 0 20190211 19816945 529586 260660 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 11:30 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 8. Central 1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayCAMBRIDGE070000122. No ‐ acc 0 20190218 19819733 531793 260165 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000002. Right tu 08:51 2 6. Unclassi 01. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 428 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayCAMBOURE070000121. Yes 0 20190603 19849243 529631 260632 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 3000021. Left turn 17:17 2 3. A 1198 1. Roundab 30 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 428 0. None 8. Central 1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayERMINE STE070000122. No ‐ acc 0 20190622 19856626 533456 259967 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 2000202. Right tu 12:27 2 6. Unclassi 06. Single ca 60 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 7. SaturdayST NEOTS E070000121. Yes 0 20190725 19866235 529665 260666 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 15:32 2 3. A 428 3. Dual car 70 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 5. Thursda A428 NEARE070000121. Yes 0 20190824 19872373 529556 260641 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 08:50 3 3. A 428 6. Single ca 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1198 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 7. SaturdayCAMBRIDGE070000121. Yes 0 20170705 17208925 539375 259480 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1010000. No turn 10:54 2 3. A 1303 1. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 428 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 4. WednesMADINGLEE070000121. Yes 152 20180322 18278412 536728 259791 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1010000. No turn 07:30 2 6. Unclassi 01. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 5. Thursda ROUNDAB E070000121. Yes 0 20180613 18301190 539343 259544 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 09:08 2 3. A 428 1. Roundab 30 1. Roundab4. Give wa 3. A 1303 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 4. WednesMADINGLEE070000121. Yes 0 20190423 19844650 535514 259684 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1001001. Left turn 10:32 1 6. Unclassi 01. Roundab 60 1. Roundab4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayST NEOTS E070000121. Yes 0 20190709 19859403 539280 259456 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1001002. Right tu 09:25 2 6. Unclassi 06. Single ca 30 8. Pri Drive4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayA1303 ST NE070000121. Yes 0 20170616 17193501 541272 259393 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 17:50 2 3. A 1303 6. Single ca 30 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 5. C 200 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 6. Friday MADINGLEE070000121. Yes 52 20171120 17242723 541958 259377 3. Slight 2. Wet/Da 1. Daylight 1000100. No turn 10:48 1 1. Motorw 11 7. Slip road 60 5. Slip Roa 4. Give wa 3. A 1303 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayJUNCTION E070000081. Yes 37 20180626 18308841 541276 259392 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1010002. Right tu 17:50 2 3. A 1303 6. Single ca 40 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayMADINGLEE070000121. Yes 0 20180917 18335076 541286 259402 2. Serious 1. Dry 1. Daylight 3000301. Left turn 13:25 2 3. A 1303 3. Dual car 40 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 2. MondayMADINGLEE070000121. Yes 0 20181113 18802400 541278 259398 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1001000. No turn 11:18 2 3. A 1303 6. Single ca 40 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 3. TuesdayMADINGLEE070000121. Yes 0 20190629 19857701 541966 259351 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1000000. No turn 17:26 2 1. Motorw 11 7. Slip road 70 5. Slip Roa 4. Give wa 3. A 1303 0. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 7. SaturdayM11 ‐ 55 ME070000081. Yes 0 20191121 19909885 541274 259393 3. Slight 1. Dry 1. Daylight 1010002. Right tu 08:37 2 3. A 1303 6. Single ca 40 3. T & Stag4. Give wa 6. Unclassi 00. None 0. None wi1. Fine wit 00. None 5. Thursda MADINGLEE070000121. Yes 0
APPENDIX B: Junction Models
APPENDIX C: Updated Plan CP-BOURN-CAMBRIDGEED.1-P2
KEY
PROPOSED FOOTWAY
EXISTING FOOTWAY
PROPOSED SECTION OF CARRIAGEWAY
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
Define Ped/Cycle path Widen shared path
BUS STOP
New path and defined crossing
STOP New Toucan crossing BUS
Existing bus stops retained
3.0m Widen shared path MADINGLEY ROAD
3.0m
Widen shared path
P2 Layout amended to retain bus layby IM 09/04/2020
rev. amendment checked date
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
Mayer Brown Limited Lion House Oriental Road Woking Surrey GU22 8AR Telephone 01483 750 508 Fax 01483 750 437 [email protected] www.mayerbrown.co.uk
client COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES
project BOURN AIRFIELD, CAMBOURNE CAMBRIDGESHIRE
scale 1:500 @ A1 drawn by HS checked by IM
date MARCH 2013 cad file MASTER.DWG
title BOURN AIRFIELD TO CAMBRIDGE OSBASE - CAMBRIDGE ROAD CROSSROADS
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown drawing number rev. copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Mayer Brown Limited. MB Licence No - 100002189. CP.BOURN-CAMBRIDGERD. 1 P2
APPENDIX D: Updated Monitoring Plan
4
1 A
3
A 0
1
0 M
3 1 1 1
A
3
0
6
A
M
1
1
1 1 M
ATC
8
2
4
A
A
1
4 3
0
3
1
A
ATC 6
4
0
1
B
d
a
o
R
ATC ATC e
g
d
i
LongL Rd r d ong Rd b
a
o m a R C
s
t
o
e ATC
N
t
S ATC
`
8 ATC 603
6 6 6 6 6 A
2 6
4 4 4 4 4
4 4
t t t t
e e e e
0 0 0 0 0 0
e e e A e
r r r r
t t t t
1 1 1 1 1 1 S S S S
n n n n
i i i
i B B B B B B
a a a a
M M M M
ATC
d d d d d d
R R R R R R
k k k k k k
c c c c
i i i i i i w w w w d d d d d d r r r r a a a a H H H H H H
ATC
d d d d
R R R R
s s s s
d d d d
l l l l
e e e e
fi fi fi
fi 6
h h h h i i i i i 4 g g g g H H H
H ATC
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1
ATC
B B B B B B
t t t t
e e e e
e e e e
r r r r
t t t t t t
S S S S S S n n n n i i i i i i a a a a M M M M M M M M M M M
d
a
o
R d
s
R R R R R R
t R
t t t t t
o t f f f f f f f f f f f f
e o o o o
T T T T T T T T T T T N T t S ATC
ATC
6 6 6 6 6 6
y y y y
a a a a
w w w
w 4 4 4 4 4 4
d d d d d d
a a a a
o o o
o 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 r r r r
B B B B B 2 B 4 1 A B
ATC
6 6 6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1
B B B B B B
d d d d d
ATC d
a a a a
o o o
o 98
R R R R R
R A11
x x x x
o o o o
F F F F F F
8 2
4
A
A1198 A1198
A1198