David Lock Associates

TRANSPORT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP, WATERBEACH BARRACKS

11TH FEBRUARY 2016

Attendance:

Tina BryanLocal resident

Margaret ColesLocal resident

Myra GauntWaterbeach Parish Council (WPC)

John GrantLocal resident

Katie FyshLocal resident

Melanie HaleChair of Landbeach Parish Council (LPC)

John HalfpennyLPC

Cllr Peter JohnsonSouth Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and WPC

Cllr Maurice LeekeCambridgeshire County Council (CCC)

John LewisLocal resident

Chris PackerWaterbeach Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

Alexander James PoppelLocal resident

Lee WilliamsLocal resident

Michael WilliamsonChairWPC

Adrian WrightWPC,ChairWaterbeach Military Heritage Museum Trust

Rebecca Britton Urban&Civic (U&C)

Simon ClewlowClewlow Consulting on behalf of RLW

Jonathan Kendall Fletcher Priest Architects (FPA)

Elliot Page Peter Brett Associates (PBA)

Darren Bell David Lock Associates (DLA)

Harry JonesDLA

1. Introductions

Rebecca opened the discussion and explained the intended purpose of the meeting. Introductions were made.

1. Urban&Civic and RLW updates

It was stressed that the Open Days held in October 2015 were focused on the land owned by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and that U&C are now working with RLW to create a shared vision through the development framework process for the wider development area encompassing the former barracks and airfield and the land to the east up to the railway line. U&C explained the different land ownerships and the role that U&C and RLW will have moving forwards.

The context of the Development Framework Document (DFD) was explained. U&C outlined that they hoped to gather as much input from residents as possible to inform the DFD. U&C and RLW are also meeting with other stakeholders including South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC), Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) and other statutory consultees.

As a result of the consultation undertaken, it is intended that the DFD will outline a shared vision for the DFD study area (including DIO and RLW land) that can be taken forward through future planning applications. The DFD vision will be thorough, workable and viable but also aim to get across the opportunity there is to create an exciting and attractive sustainable development in this unique location.

It will be very important to consider the wider context of the area beyond the land ownership boundaries such as the relationship with Landbeach, Cambridge Research Park (CRP), Cambridge City and also the emerging neighbourhood plan.

A summary of the other workshops that have been undertaken was provided. These include workshops relating to the design vision and principles andgreen infrastructure. It was noted that there is a significant amount of interconnectivity through the topics.

1. Update on the planning context & the Development Framework Document

An overview of the planning context for the DFD was provided. The DFD will present key principles informed through discussion with residents and other stakeholders. The document is being prepared by the site promoters but this is taking place in partnership with SCDC.

There was an update on the Local Plan (LP) position and the timetable for the examination of the LP which will restart no earlier thanJune. It will take some time before the examination progressed to Waterbeach specific sessions which are scheduled to be at the back end of the process.

The Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group provided an update on the progress that had been made in relation to the preparation of the Waterbeach neighbourhood plan. An initial document has been shared between the Parish Council group but it is early days. The Parish Council suggested that they are hopeful that things will move forwards.

RLW were clear that they have always invested in the development at Waterbeach and are committed for the long term. RLW are listening and are part of the process. U&C have energised the process and brought things forward ahead of the LP. Although the consultation events have been fronted by U&C, both parties’ technical consultants are meeting on a regular basis. The DFD will be a joint document.

It was noted that both U&Cs and RLWs master planning teams are meeting regularlyand there is a great degree of alignment between respective visions. The drawings and drafting for the DFD will be shared between the teams to ensure that an agreed position is reached. It was explained that U&C and RLW are subject to a differing range of constraints. For example,U&C have been subject to MOD disposals and investment planning requirements which has influenced their approachsofar.

U&C also wanted to hit the ground running to energise the project but have listened to the strong message from the community which has been that there is a desire for joint working between U&C and RLW. Joint working has beentakingplace over a period of time.

The working relationship is important as any development on this scale will come forward in phases and there is a natural build-up of development activity. Early phases will have to be capable of standing alone in terms of facilities and meet existing needs where appropriate. Therefore rather than looking solely at land ownerships and red lines, joint working and agreed phasing is vital.

There were questions on the importance of the LP and what would happen if the LP failed at examination. The importance of the LP was highlighted – the LP has an evidence base and the process for the examination will continue. The draft LP underpins current thinking. If the LP did fail then it is likely that there may be a requirement to re-consider the planning strategy but there was optimism that it would not fail.

U&Cs view on the LP was clarified – U&Cs approach to development has always been to proactively engage with the planning process in order to positively influence evidence gathering and to focus thinking on delivery. The nature of plan making is such that there is never a ‘steady state’ and by not being proactive, there is a danger that you can waitfor a steady planning status which never materialises. U&Cs approach is to get things moving and have the important conversations that are required in order to bring forward development collaboratively.

Waterbeach has important locational benefits and RLW and U&C feel that there is a real opportunity to maximise the benefits of this. Local attitudes to sustainable transport are also generally positive and this presents an additional advantage. Ultimately, U&C and RLW stressed that there is a mutual interest in making the development an attractive and sustainable place to live.

There is a need to understand what infrastructure needs to be in place and when. The outcomes of the A10 Corridor Study will be a key part of this understanding.

1. A10 strategic study latest and explain relationship with DFD process

An overview of the A10 Corridor Study was provided. CCC areundertaking a study which is tasked to look at how the A10 corridor will function in the future. There is a deficit in infrastructure funding and the study will identify costed options of new infrastructureand the potential phasing and timing for delivery, and opportunities for meeting this deficit.

The ingredients that will help to solve transport issues along the corridor are known but specifics will come out of the study. All developers along the Corridor and the local authorities have inputs to the study with information on housing and infrastructure delivery and phasing.

Not only will the study provide the specifics on detailed options but in providing costings and some information on when investment needs to be phased to deliver it, it will enable local authorities to secure funding streams from national government, and the City Deal, and to leverage funding from developers as private match funding to support this. This will in turn enable additional government investment.

U&C and RLW were clear that in order to make the development successful as a place, there is a requirement for the delivery of a good deal of community and transport infrastructure. That developers will play a part in the delivery of this infrastructure is a given. However, there is a commercial reality which means that development and the timing of infrastructure delivery must be aligned to ensure that investment is viable.

There was a strong view from the group that whilst strategic transport planning is a key element to bringing forward development, what is most important is that the local community believe and trust the principles behind the site’s transport strategy and the effectiveness of its delivery; ideally with the potential for ongoing review and interventions if needed. RB agreed that a process which fixes key investment timetables for interventions, but allows flexible review which can respond to changes that occur or unexpected outcomes provides assurance and ongoing response. Until that is set out clearly then all recognise it will hard for people to support a strategy.

U&C outlined that the outcomes of the A10 Corridor Study can help to fulfil this objective as it willprovide a clear plan for achieving the investment in transport required to support the development. The outcomes of the A10 Corridor Study can be fed into the planning approachesand first phases of delivery.

Timed commitments in infrastructure delivery can be embedded in planning for the site and futurelegal agreements can give the community certainty that the development at Waterbeach can work as a place. It is also possible to set up “monitor and manage” systems and pots of funding which can respond flexibly outside of these phased agreed interventions.

It was clarified that the A10 Corridor Study is being prepared independently from the promotors although U&C and RLW have contributed fundingto support it. The study is being prepared by Mott McDonald on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). CCC will consult upon the A10 Corridor Study and there will be an opportunity for the local community to influence the outcomes. U&C agreed to provide an update on the A10 corridor study in the next newsletter.

The teams outlined that they are prepared to be ambitious about the opportunities to promote sustainable travel. U&Cs view is that it is not acceptable to plan a development which does not function effectively and which is not sustainable: this wouldbe morally wrong and commercially damaging: affecting the attractiveness of the development, impacting house sales and negatively impacting a developer’s reputation. Infrastructure delivery is expensive but it is a valuable and important investment.

1. Discussion on emerging Transport and Movement Principles

1. Overarching objectives and principles on transport and urban design

Discussion at the meeting became focused upon the vision and principles and opportunities for sustainable movement and connectivity through the design of the development.

There are important factors which will influence the relationship between the development and the village and land to the north of the village. These can be key building blocks for the structure of the development. It is also important to think about what this might mean for the existing village.

The current context of travel from Waterbeach was stressed by one attendee who provided an example of the effect that current capacity constraints had on their journey to work. The attendee explained that road capacity is so constrained that in order to travel to work at Papworth Hospital for 9am via public transport, they had to leave Waterbeach at 5.00 am. To travel to the hospital via car, they have to leave at 7.30 am. There was an agreement that this requirement was extreme and unsustainable.

It was suggested that part of the existing transport problems effecting journeys to Cambridge links to housing and house prices; locations of employment centres; and existing infrastructure deficits: people have to commute into the City to work. It was noted that investment in transport infrastructure is required and that this must be aligned with the delivery of housing. Part of the reason why the development of Northstowe has stalled is that investment in the A14 has not come forwards as anticipated. Whilst Northstowe has a guided busway extension, this was never anticipated to solve its entire transport requirements. Cambridge needs as much transport infrastructure as possible.

UC and RLW are looking at thebroadertransport picture along the A10 corridor and wider transport network. The answer to ensure sustainable transport as part of the development at Waterbeach is likely tobe a range of investment in a mixture of infrastructure. The benefits of investment must be maximised.

There was a discussion relatingto the type of place that the development would be. It was suggested that it would be important that the town would be a place with a mixture of functions and not a dormitory. It will also be important that the desire that people will have to work away from Waterbeach is not ignored. However, there will be a mixture of activities and employment uses whichare likely to reduce the requirement to travel. The delivery of a range of uses also has implications for the existing village as it may also change the way that existing residents have to travel – for example, reducing trips to shop and to access education.

It was suggested that the master planner’s job is to bring together more than just vehicular travel but all uses and functions. It is important to capture that there can be new relationships and linksthroughout the village. Denny Abbey can also be connected to the new development and Waterbeach village through the development of the site. There are traces of existing infrastructure on the former barracks which can be used as a focus for new amenity, recreation and connectivity. Cambridge Research Park (CRP) can also be embraced by sustainable access to it.

There was a discussion relating to the potential impact on existing shops in Waterbeach village: potential benefits and disadvantages.

Discussions during the workshops that have been undertaken so far have shown that green infrastructure and ecology can help provide structure and focus to the design for the development.

The distribution of schools is crucial but it is important to ensure that connections to schools from homes and other key facilities are also well planned. It was noted that existing children in Waterbeach village have to travel to secondary schools in Cottenham. Providing secondary school facilities on site will reduce existing trips.

It was suggested that one of the big advantages of the development is that there are just two promotors. This means that good planning can take place to deliver new facilities in the way that supports place making and the delivery of a sustainable transport strategy. This environment can help to make the developmentas sustainable as possible. This is not always the case with a development of this scale.

1. Relationship of site to immediate surrounds (Village and Research Park) including pedestrian and Cycle connections and key access points

Construction Access

There was a discussion relating to planning for construction access to the site. It was confirmed that it is not currently envisaged that any construction traffic would be routed through the village. Early connections to the site would be provided from the A10. The site is also extremely large and well suited to the stockpiling of materials. Access for construction related movements can also be planned to avoid peak times on roads. There is potentially an opportunity to deliver materials via rail and there was anidea from local residents that airship technology or tunnels could be used to transport materialsif pilot projects being trialled locally were successful.

New Accesses to the development area from the A10

There will be a continued focus upon the strategic vision for the development. The vision will be a key driver to make new connections work to achieve the vision rather than the other way round. Once this has been established, it is possible to think at a more detailed scale such as primary points of access. One option could be the CRP roundabout on the A10. This could also be an ideal place for new public transport facilities such as Park and Ride. It was confirmed that a second access onto the A10 further south would also be most likely needed.

Access between the new development and Waterbeach village

A network of streets would facilitate movement across the site. It was statedthat the current thinking – based on feedback from the Vision workshops and other discussions with local residents - is that there would not be new vehicular connections from the site through the existing Waterbeach village. That the connections between the two should be new walking, cycling and bus routes between the village and the new development. This approach would prevent rat running through the village and seek to preserve and enhance the existing character of the village, whilst ensuring integration and connectivity for local people.

Rail Access

The discussion focused upon opportunities for improved rail access. The delivery of enhancements to the existing station or a new railway station would improveconnections from Waterbeach village to the station and to Cambridge, Ely and London. There is an existing commitment from rail operating bodies to deliver the necessary upgrades in power infrastructure required to support more carriages on trains stopping at the existing station. And an acknowledgement that additional investment in platforms, facilities and parking would be needed. It is clear that there is going to be rail investment and the development of a new town at Waterbeach is an important driver for securing investment from rail operators.