Minutes of the Planning Meeting 4th August 2003 7:30 at Monkfield Medical Practice

 

Present:  Roger Hume,  David McEwan-Cox,  Mike Jocelyn.  This constitutes a quorum.

 

Apologies for absence:                 None

 

Members of the Public:            Eight

 

Mike was requested to take the minutes in the absence of Gail Stoehr,

 

1.         The primary application for consideration was the amended Cambourne Enhanced proposal.  In spite of a small reduction in the number of extra houses applied for, the opposition was just as vocal as with the previous application.  Members of the public were invited to have their say prior to the planning committee holding their own meeting.

 

1a        Roger gave a short summary of the history of Cambourne Master Plan and the Cambourne Enhanced variation sought.  Comments:

            i)            School Lane between Lower and Great should have very low density.  The Enhanced version violates this

            ii)            The burial ground and the relocated driving range land no longer have ambitions for building thereon in this amendment

`           iii)            Reasons for the last refusal are on Roger’s web site

            iv)            Mike will find addresses of those who wrote last time and put a flyer in their door to request they send the letter again.

 

1b            Residents were urged once again to write to the SCDC Planning Director expressing their dismay at a re-run of the last rejected application. 

 

2          Anger was expressed at the timing of the application, just at the start of the school holidays, with some speculation as to the whether this was deliberate. Members of the public comments were as follows. 

 

2a        Stuart Moss emphasised the need to communicate with residents.  He thought he could mobilise 10 or more residents to write.  He also thought the extra building time would cause unreasonable disruption.

 

2b        Sue Richmond suggested a writing group on a particular day. 

 

2c        Paul Thornton commented that there was already an evident increase of traffic on the road passing Morrisons. The increase in housing numbers for Upper Cambourne, with the only vehicle outlet being that same road, would lead to overload and misery for all living in the area. 

 

2d            Jennifer Atkinson highlighted traffic problems in the making.  She also thought schooling an issue and bussing of more and more secondary children to Comberton was detrimental to the children and the environment.  The removal of a clear green area between Lower and Great Cambourne was also thought to fly in the face of the original three village concept. 

 

2e        Mr Halliday  also expressed the view that the increase in housing numbers for Upper Cambourne would lead to severe problems on Monkfield Lane near to Morrisons this being the only vehicle outlet.

 

2f         John Flavill agreed with Andrew Lansley’s letter about violating the three village design brief.

 

2g        In a general free for all it was felt that Upper Cambourne would have many social problems associated with the very high densities proposed.  The lack of any mass transport system near to Cambourne, as highlighted by a letter written by Andrew Lansley, meant that, even when fully dualled, the A428 would quickly run out of capacity.  It was also felt that the increase in the time taken to complete the building of Cambourne was totally unreasonable.

 

3          The public were then asked to observe without comment as the elected committee prepared their formal response to the application. The request was not particularly well observed but was good natured and passed without formal reprimand by the Chairman. 

 

3a        Roger read out the reasons sent with the last application.  It was agreed to remove those relating to land now reinstated.  The following to be added.

 

            i)            The loss of open space due to higher densities should have the boundaries annotated.

            ii)            No mass transport system since the railway is not being built.

            iii)            Item 2 on SCDC list re: the proposed increase exceeds PPG3 requirements.

            iv)            The loss of the small workshop area will reduce local employment contrary to the perceived policy.

            v)            Higher density in the School Lane area will blur the visual distinction between Lower and Great.

            vi)            Residents in high density areas are likely to lose respect for their environment.

 

3b        The committee formal response is appended and will be sent to non attending MLC members for ratification or comment.  If no response then the committee will assume all members are in agreement and send the comments within the time scale required.

 

4.         The only other application was for a flag pole and all present became a little light headed with comments about whether it was to be vertical, horizontal, bent or straight.  However no objections were actually lodged so the application was not opposed.

 

5.         After a final urging to get letter writing the meeting finished at 9:07 p.m.

 

APPENDIX            MLC Response from Planning Committee meeting  6th. August 2003

 

Application  S/6182/03/0 - CAMBOURNE   Amended  16 July 2003

 

The Cambourne MLC (forerunner to a Parish Council) recommends refusal on the following grounds:

 

1.      Commitment made to Residents.

 

a.      Cambourne  Residents were assured of a 3 village environment with maximum of  3000 Dwellings.  A 10% contingency was allowed for in the S106 legal document which was, and remains, the basis of the agreement. 

 

b.   A  further 1859 (1559 + the 300 contingency) dwellings on two thirds of the existing designated land area (since 1000 dwellings are already built) would violate the natural fairness due to the community and show a betrayal of trust in the planning process and in the SCDC commitment to it’s electorate.

 

2.      PPG3 recommendation

 

         a.                The proposed density increase exceeds the PPG3 recommendation, even if this was retrospective.

 

         b      PPG3 (Para. 66) details a need for a greener environment and is not supportive of an area which is exclusively housing. New development must be planned as a community with a mix of land uses, including adequate shops, employment and services.

 

         c     Cambourne is on a Greenfield site.  PPG3  very much relates to Brownfield sites.

 

3.         Transportation

 

a         Transport links – Does not conform to PPG 3 on transport links and location.  (The traffic projections are flawed and the MLC Planning Committee support the questions asked and the statements made as detailed in the attached document (Appendix 2) which seeks further clarification where applicable.)

 

b)         There is no Mass Transport System envisaged close to Cambourne since the Bedford-Cambridge rail link along the A428 corridor, as included in the London South Midlands Multi-Modal Study, is not currently being supported by any government funding. This means overburdening existing roads and routes.

 

4.         Community and Education

 

         a.                  No additional community benefits are detailed.

 

b.         Lack of primary and secondary schooling provision within the application site.  This would necessitate the bussing of yet more children to and fro each day to schooling outside the development site.  It appears from the application title that additional schooling is to form part of the application.  However it seems that the intention is to increase the provision at the existing primary schools within Cambourne and secondary provision at Comberton.  Clarification is requested on this point.

 

c.      A major expansion introduced at this stage of Cambourne’s growth would be disruptive both to the existing and future Cambourne residents and also to the carefully planned evolution of the community, its environment and its facilities.  The estimated completion time of 10 years for the whole Cambourne project is already showing signs of severe slippage.  To subject the residents to 10 extra years is contrary to natural justice.

 

5.      Ecology and Environment

 

         a.                 Foul and surface water drainage provision is lacking and detail, where provided, inadequate – given the increased number of housing and the taking up of more green space which will over burden the existing infrastructure. There is a lack of additional provision.

 

b.            There will be a loss of wildlife habitat and an adverse impact on existing flora and fauna with the additional and undesirable loss of space.  The loss of domestic gardens has been clearly shown to be just as prejudicial to wildlife as any other open space.

 

c.         An increase in density in the region between Lower and Great Cambourne blurs and destroys the carefully planned visual distinction between the two villages.

 

6.   Employment and Services

 

1.             The re-designation of the area allocated for small commercial workshops should not be tolerated.  There will be reduced local employment contrary to the original principles for employment. The Business Park is not an alternative for the needs of those wishing to obtain access to small commercial units.

 

2.             There is a lack of details on electricity, gas and other public services provision

 

 

 

 

 

THE MLC COMMITTEE REJECTS THE APPLICATION

 

Appendix 2 follows on the next page

 

Traffic Assessment.  Observations and Questions.

APPENDIX 2

 

Traffic Assessment.  Observations and Questions.

 

Key:           TA = Cambourne Enhanced Transport Assessment

                  AR = Cambourne Enhanced Transport Assessment - Addendum Report

 

(1) Para 2.5.4   2006 Base Flow on A428

 

(a) Why is the quoted figure for the PBK&D SATURN model two-way flow given for the 2006 NRTF LOW growth case?

 

The NRTF produces 'low' and 'high' growth figures. Typically an average 'central' growth figure is used. BUT in the case of the Cambridge area population employment and traffic growth is expected to be unusually high over the forecast period as noted in the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS).

 

Therefore the NRTF HIGH growth figure would probably be more appropriate.  This is particularly relevant given the recent December 2002 statement by the Secretary of State for Transport:

 

He said there had been more traffic in 2000 the start date for the targets than had been anticipated originally.

 

"That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is now projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the future levels of congestion we are faced with."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2582093.stm

 

This would suggest that, in the case of Cambridgeshire, even the old NRTF high growth case may prove to be an underestimate.

 

Further support for this position comes from the Cambridgeshire County Council Traffic Monitoring Reports 2000 and 2001 which give the two-way flows on the Cambourne stretch of the A428 as:

(see http://www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/highways/tmr/index.htm )

 

 Year           16 hour 2-way        12-hour 2-way

 

2000                    20 300                       17 650

2001                    21 700                       18 870

 

(here the 16 hour published flows have been converted to 12 hour flows by dividing by 1.15 - the conversion factor given in section 9.8 of the Department for Transport COBA manual).

 

As can be seen, these figures already exceed the quoted Base flow of 17 322 vehicle 12 hour figure given in the RPS report (although the latter does EXCLUDE Cambourne traffic, some of which will be present in both counts, although probably only a limited amount in the year 2000).

 

(b) Has any account been taken of the SACTRA guidelines for estimating additional induced traffic expected as a result of the A428 Caxton Gibbet to Hardwick dualling?

 

The Standing Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) advised that all trunk road schemes should take account of the additional induced traffic generated by a trunk road improvement scheme over and above the demand predicted in the Business As Usual case.  A relevant passage from Hansard is:

( http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961206/text/61206w04.htm )

 

Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Key, dated 6 December 1996:

 

The assessments indicate that the volume of additional traffic induced by schemes is generally less than 10 per cent., and in many cases below 5 per cent. Nevertheless, there can be significant variations on this; for example where substantial new development follows a road opening.

 

 I don't see any evidence for the explicit inclusion of this additional factor in the Cambourne Enhanced Transport Assessment, unless the additional 200 vehicles mentioned in Para 2.5.7 as travelling on the old A428 represents an estimate of this. 

Both these considerations serve to suggest that the 2006 Base Flow estimate in the RPS report is probably a significant underestimate.

 

(2) Para 2.5.10   Bar Hill Trip Rates

 

These were employed to lower the estimated Cambourne trip generation below the rates used in the 1995 Masterplan.  Their use was queried by the Highways Agency unofficial review of the TA before the AR was

produced.  The AR uses Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) evidence to support the use of Bar Hill trip rates and show a tendency towards Bar Hill trip rates in Cambourne (Appendix B).

 

However, these trip rates are per DWELLING (Residential Unit). 

 

(a) Is there any indication that the current number of persons per dwelling (2.64 according to the Cambourne Survey) is indeed commensurate with that at Bar Hill?

 

(b) How are the household sizes (and therefore the underlying trip rates) expected to

change under the Cambourne Enhanced proposal?

 

(3) Section 4    Person Trips

 

The Highways Agency had questions about the application of the person trip model in the TA (see AR).  It seems to suggest significant internalisation of trips especially for employment within Cambourne.  Questions arise concerning

the assumed nature of the residents' employment and their potential for finding employment within Cambourne.

 

(a) Are the Bar Hill and Cambourne employed resident and on-site employment classifications compatible?

 

(b) Timing and types of job available are significant.  Most Cambourne residents will have jobs in Cambridge, London and elsewhere and will probably not be able to find suitable alternatives in Cambourne.  This is especially true if the majority of the residents move in before the offices to potentially employ them are built/leased in the Business Park.

 

(c) What are the assumptions behind the trip attraction factors, generalised cost

structures and distribution choice parameters used in the person trip model? 

 

The number of internal attractions seems remarkably high.

 

(4) Para 4.6.2 - 4.6.6   Mode Split binary Logit model

 

(a) Why does this only include Car and Bus (except for London)?

 

(b) How have the generalised costs been estimated?

 

(c) The car costs seem to rely on penalties for parking and congestion in Cambridge city centre.  However, many may then opt to Car Share or Park and Ride. Both of these would increase the number of cars leaving the site and cast into doubt the queuing assessments in the TA and AR..  They are already represented at 3% and 4% of trips to Cambridge in the Cambourne Survey (AR App. C Chart C.4) and schemes are underway to enhance their share.  There is no evidence of their explicit or implicit inclusion in the mode split/generalised cost model in the TA.

 

Final Observations

 

1. The AR response to the Highways Agency questions is not completely satisfying but does include a 'Worst Case' sensitivity test that looks pretty robust - although it does suggest that some further junction improvements could be needed.  Will the developer recognise and implement these if queues do build up?

 

2. What provision is there to monitor and review developments in order that departures from the optimistic TA/AR predictions can be taken on board?        Is any review process scheduled? - it should be.

 

3. Have any forecasts been made of  future developments beyond 2006?                                                

 

The limited queues forecast at the Cambourne A428 'Worst Case' test may quickly rise beyond an acceptable level if high levels of growth continue in the region (as seems likely) and even the new A428 exceeds capacity. Have any tests been undertaken using 2016 figures from CHUMMS or elsewhere?