Its time to make the Mill Road Modal Filter Work

There was an interesting local Council by-election result from Tottenham Hale last week - fought by the Conservatives entirely as a campaign against a local Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN). The Conservative vote share fell from 8.3% to 5.8%. To make it abundantly clear, this means opposing LTNs is not a strong election winning tactic - it damages support. 

My views differ from friends in the Conservative party on the merits of the recently agreed bus filter on Mill Road in Cambridge (a form of LTN) - this will close Mill Road bridge to private motor vehicles (with a few exceptions like taxis and vehicles used by blue badge holders). To summarise where we are now:

• A big study of LTNs in London shows no significant increase in traffic on boundary roads around LTNs - some journeys are longer, other journeys are replaced by more sustainable options, overall these effects approximately balance on boundary roads, and traffic is much lower inside the LTN. There is no reason to believe the results from the Mill Road filter will be significantly different.
• There is a difference of opinion over the impact on trade on businesses on Mill Road. But the risks have been significantly overstated by opponents of the filter. For most shops, there was no (legal or safe) option to stop off outside the shops. Studies have shown shop owners systematically overestimate the contribution to their trade from cars. Most vehicles on Mill Road are just passing through. Mill Road is great, but it is much more pleasant to visit the shops, restaurants and cafes without the hideous levels of car use on the road we currently see.
• All the evidence is that there is strong public support for the filter - the Conservatives made no electoral impact with a campaign against the filter at last year's local elections, and winning Council candidates in the area strongly support the filter, two official surveys have also shown clear net support. The decision to approve the permanent Traffic Regulation Order was made by the Highways Committee of the County Council, with Councillors voting in favour, including all the Councillors closest to the filter. If the plans with strong local support in Cambridge had been blocked mostly by Conservatives from distant parts of the rural County, it would have made it harder still for any kind of Conservative recovery in the City.

At the meeting, the Conservative group tried to delay the decision and kick the can further down the road, by calling for more studies and a public enquiry. There has been more than 2 years to consider traffic modelling, and lots of evidence from elsewhere - the conclusions of any further work would have been as above - broadly neutral impact on boundary roads, much lower congestion on and near Mill Road. Taking the decision away from democratically elected Councillors to a public enquiry would have needed taxpayers money being taken from other areas to pay the cost of making a less democratic decision. The cost and delays to seemingly every government decision of giving people endless rights to appeal, object, veto or delay controversial decisions is having a catastrophic impact on economic growth and the public finances - it does not reflect well on the Conservatives that they proposed engaging in these tactics here.

So my main message to the Conservatives and those traders who have opposed this decision - or regardless of what you think of the Mill Road bridge bus filter - a popular, considered, democratic decision has now been taken to introduce a permanent TRO. It is time to move on, and work constructively to make the most of the obvious benefits of a lower traffic Mill Road, and continue to enhance the street to attract in more people. There are new opportunities like adding spots of short-stay shopper parking, blue badge spaces, removing the now-unnecessary traffic lights at Gwydir Street, and removing peak-time delivery restrictions - all of which are not possible when there is so much through-traffic.

Any time and effort spent trying to undo a fait accompli is effort that distracts from the campaign against the GCP's congestion charging plans - which all the evidence suggests aren't popular over a wide area, do not have a democratic mandate and will do a lot of harm to people who will have no viable options to paying a large new additional tax. To defeat the congestion charging plans will require a broad coalition - it won't be helped if campaigners constantly veers towards an extreme general campaign to oppose all measures to help and encourage people to use their cars a bit less, and more sustainable options a bit more.

Response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation.

Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation. Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion Charging groundhog day - pretty much the same plans have been dusted off from Oct 2016, and my views haven't changed much on them since then. When this round is over, we really do need to get to the bottom of who is trying to force this on Cambridge (as you struggle to find an elected politician who claims responsibility), and why we have wasted so much of the last 6 years when it comes to delivering actual transport infrastructure.

Anyway, here goes...

1) To what extent do you support or oppose the proposals for bus improvements and fare reductions?

Oppose. Some are OK, overall they won’t deliver significant enough benefit for the costs involved.

2) Do you have any comments on the proposals for:

Cheaper fares?

More routes?

Fast, high frequency services?

Longer operating hours?

Increased rural services?

Simpler ticketing?

Zero emission bus services?

Broadly supportive of cheaper fares, with some public subsidy. When I have used buses in the past, I was surprised by the high fare costs, which are clearly a barrier to more bus usage, particularly as it is an additional marginal usage cost for people who have already paid the fixed costs of car ownership.

The current service providers are not currently able to run the advertised bus service with any degree of reliability. Top priority should be ensuring that the current timetables can be sustained. I’d also support extension of service times on main routes to cover the evening rush hour.

However, most of the proposed changes to increase services into increasingly more rural areas, increase frequency and increase operating hours e.g. to the early hours of the morning are likely to involve enormous levels of public subsidy with very little benefit to the overall transport situation, as for reasons elsewhere in these responses they fall far short of what is needed to make a journey by bus a more appealing option for most journeys, and with lower population densities there won’t be enough demand to sustain the large ‘per passenger-journey’ subsidies needed. Our local Councils have repeatedly tried to subsidise various routes at extended hours, but usually cancel schemes when the extraordinary subsidy per person becomes apparent. (e.g. nightbuses were tried in Cambridge City in 2001 but cancelled later as it would almost have been cheaper to pay for taxis for the low usage numbers). The current Cambridge City Council budget consultation includes cancelling subsidies to reduce the location and hours of some routes.

Simpler ticketing is a great idea in principle, but hard to do in practice - would only make sense if using a commercial off the shelf solution and not trying to invent something bespoke locally.

Zero emission bus services are obviously a good idea, but are likely to be rolled out nationally in the near future anyway.

3) Are there any additional improvements to bus services that would be needed for you to use bus services for more of your journeys? If so, what are they? Or if you are a non-bus user, what would encourage you to use the bus?

Nothing at all would persuade me to use buses more as they are too slow and inefficient for any conceivable journey I would want to make. A 50% reduction in congestion (even if this did turn out to be achievable which is far from clear) and more frequent service wouldn’t significantly impact this calculation, as the speed of bus journeys is fundamentally limited by the speed limit of roads, residual congestion, the circuitous routes they need to take in order to cover sufficient population in any rural journey, and the time taken at bus stops. To put this into context - I used to live in central Newmarket, and work at Cambridge Airport, which has a direct bus route. My transport options were:

Drive: A good clear journey would take just over 15 mins door to door. Anything over 30 mins would constitute a very bad and unusual journey for congestion.

Train: If I was going elsewhere in Cambridge after work, I would use the train/folding bike combination. The train journey was around 25 mins, with about 10-15 mins cycling each end, so around 45-55 mins in total, but reasonably consistent journey time compared to car, although much less flexibility.

Bus never came into consideration - even with a bus service from Newmarket stopping outside my final destination, the journey time itself would have been at least an hour due to the route taken, plus 10 mins walk at the start, plus the need to arrive at the bus stop early. Journey times would be inconsistent, the service would always be less reliable and less comfortable than car or train. Even if it was free, and there was increased reliability due to less congestion, and an option to get a bus home later in the evening, and a congestion charge on car use, it still wouldn’t have come into consideration as it would remain far too slow and inconvenient, and the same would be true for anyone whose time is valued at any kind of commercial rate. For anyone with a similar journey without a direct door-to-door bus (ie most people living outside Cambridge) the time cost of buses would be enormously high. 

I currently live in Chesterton in Cambridge. I walk or cycle most journeys. If I find myself somewhere without a bike and need to get home (eg. arriving at the main train station), I used to get a taxi/Uber, now I would get a Voi scooter - buses would take far too long to be a viable alternative regardless of congestion. I only use my car rarely, if I need to carry something too heavy for a bike - in which case the bus would similarly not be suitable. I am currently able to mostly use sustainable travel options because I am fortunate enough to be able to afford housing (almost) suitable to my needs in Cambridge. Because of generations of poor planning approach by the local authorities, we haven’t built enough new homes where they are needed within sustainable commuting distance of people’s jobs, friends and social lives. Many people work in the City but can only afford a family home some distance away from Cambridge. This problem can only be fixed by fixing the planning system and building more homes where they are needed nearer to Cambridge, concentrated around access points to new dedicated public transport corridors.

4) The bus improvements are proposed to start immediately after a decision in summer 2023 and ramp up over the following 4-5 years. What bus improvements would you want to see delivered first?

See answers to Q2

5) To what extent would you support or oppose the franchising of the local bus network by the Mayor and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority?

Don’t know 

The current system of running buses is clearly broken - supply in the private sector has become monopolised (or acts like is has), services are unreliable and not well co-ordinated between providers and transport modes.

However, it is unclear if local authorities (particularly the mess of local authorities we suffer from in greater Cambridge) would do a better job, nor is it clear that there is an efficient and cost effective process to introduce bus franchising. The experience in Greater Manchester suggests that currently the statutory process to implement franchising is slow, complex, expensive and subject to delaying tactics like legal challenges. Given the size of the greater Cambridge area, it may make more sense to lobby government to introduce a much more streamlined route to franchising instead of trying to use the current system, possibly as part of a local devolution scheme.

6) To what extent do you support or oppose additional improvements to walking and cycling, accessibility and public spaces?

I am strongly supportive of improvements to walking and cycling. I have no confidence that these proposals or our current local authorities can deliver what is required.

The current high modal share for cycling in Cambridge is mostly in spite of the cycling infrastructure, not because of it. The delivery record of the local authorities is extremely poor, with projects such as the Chisholm Trail taking decades to approve, and even now is only half built, with phase 1 going significantly over budget and taking far longer than a project of that complexity should have done. The Greenways projects were proposed in 2016. Despite the large numbers of new homes proposed at Waterbeach, the relevant Greenway was again delayed this year, and is still years away from opening. There needs to be a step change in the approach to delivering cycling infrastructure to reduce costs and speed up delivery.

The proposals outlined for cycling and walking are vague and unambitious. We should plan to deliver a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling. By Dutch standard network I mean a dedicated network of interconnected segregated routes in and around Cambridge, with appropriate infrastructure such as bridges and underpasses to ensure cycling and micromobility is the most cost and time effective choice for most journeys.

An easy way to start down this road is for all new developments to include Dutch standard cycle facilities - we are still approving car based dormitory settlements that fall far below best practice standards for active travel. 

7) If a Sustainable Travel Zone was introduced, are there any other improvements you would like to see funded?

I don’t believe the proposals to raise revenue through congestion charging are acceptable or will be implemented in anything like their current form, so this question is not applicable.

8) Do you have any comments on the proposal to introduce a Sustainable Travel Zone?

The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight. 

That so many long journeys in and out of Cambridge are required to support the local economy is testament to decades of failed planning policies that have not built sufficient new homes near to where they are needed, and have favoured the development of car based dormitory settlements, forcing people to commute long distances between homes they can afford to bring up their families, and the jobs they need to provide for them.

As such, it is implausible that the proposals will succeed in reducing congestion or speeding up journeys as predicted, further reducing their effectiveness, and the costs of the congestion charge will be unavoidable for many, so will function as a highly regressive new form of taxation on sections of the population that are already struggling with high living costs.

There are further problems with the congestion charging proposals. The operating costs of the system will be high so it will be a very inefficient form of taxation. The initial implementation will be capital intensive and technically risky. The proposals involve a significant degree of surveillance of people’s movements around the city - an intrusion of personal privacy that is hard to justify given the limited net benefits identified.

There is no democratic cover for this proposal, and political support is largely absent or opaque or both. Significant and controversial changes such as this, should not have been progressed to this stage without being clearly presented to electorates at local elections, where it is clear which authority is responsible for the proposals, and which candidates for those authorities support or oppose the proposals, so voters have the chance to not elect those supporting a controversial change. This has systematically not happened in this case. The program is being promoted by the Greater Cambridge Partnership - a body which is not directly elected, but functions through appointees. Whilst some of those appointees have been vocal in supporting those proposals, it is not clear they have the support of those that appointed them in doing so. None of my local Councillors at City or County level have expressed support for the plans, despite being pressed for their views repeatedly. At the local elections and since, no candidate in my area has publicised support for the plans. At a recent by-election in South Cambridgeshire, there was a very strong swing towards candidates opposing plans for congestion charging. This all suggests that there have been strong efforts to hide the plans from voters prior to elections, and remove this decision from effective democratic control - that is completely unacceptable. The mess of local authorities hasn’t helped, with it being very unclear which out of the combined authority, county council or greater Cambridge Partnership is responsible for introducing the measures or implementing them. 

In order to progress proposals such as these, we need all the local authorities to be replaced in the Greater Cambridge area by a new Unitary Authority, with empowered directly elected representatives, with policies being clearly put to voters at an election before being progressed.

9) To what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling?

Strongly Oppose.

10) If you do not support the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling, what alternative funding proposals would you propose to tackle the challenges faced by Greater Cambridge?

Greater Cambridge is one of the most economically successful regions of the UK, with progress being made on science and technology that is transforming the world for the better. It is scandalous that this has not been accompanied by proper funding of transport and other infrastructure.

To fund the decent transport systems we need and deserve:

Create a Greater Cambridge Unitary Authority to improve the efficiency of local government, allowing it to deliver projects quicker and more cost effectively.

Seek devolved powers over local planning, and use those to build significantly more homes near Cambridge on new and existing dedicated transport routes (reducing the need for car journeys, and supporting active and sustainable transport)

Introduce significant community infrastructure levies on new developments that channel more of the uplift in value from planning permissions into new infrastructure (as happens in other countries) and use the funds for capital spending on new transport infrastructure, including a new network of dedicated public transport routes (e.g. Light Rail) and Dutch standard segregated active travel routes.

To fund ongoing operational subsidies for transport networks, more funding needs to originate from the successful businesses, for example:

A workplace parking levy

A better share of business rates from successful businesses going to the new local authority to use on transport subsidies, potentially as part of a local devolution deal.

If further revenue subsidy is required:

Move towards charging market rates for residents parking permits (currently would be £80-100 per month in central Cambridge) - this would have an effect in reducing demand, but would be more expensive in higher cost areas where there are more sustainable alternatives, so would be far less unfair and regressive than congestion charging that mostly hits the less well off

An additional Council tax precept for public transport

11) Do you have any feedback on the proposed Zone and its boundary?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the zone will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress.

12) Do you have any comments on the proposed hours of operation of the Sustainable Travel Zone?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the timings will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress. I would note that some of the most congested times (weekends on Newmarket Road) aren’t currently in scope, but quiet parts of the weekdays when congestion isn’t really an issue at all are currently in scope.

13) To what extent would you support or oppose the principle of phasing in the Sustainable Travel Zone charge?

Oppose

14) Do you have any comments on the suggested phasing approach?

Its hard to see how the phasing is anything other than a political calculation as to what might be acceptable. It significantly weakens the financial case for the plans and opens it up to significant risk.

The bus subsidies will be introduced early, followed by significant capex to introduce congestion charging followed by possible congestion charging revenue. This makes it very unlikely that an appropriately risk weighted net present value calculation of the costs and benefits of the proposals will be positive.

Specifically, there are a number of risks that may derail the introduction of the charging mechanism, including technical challenges, legal and privacy challenges, political challenges (ie elected representatives who continue to support charging being dumped from office causing plans to change) and potential changes in national government policy (e.g. if the takeup of electric vehicles causes a national road pricing scheme to be introduced to replace VED and fuel duty). In any of these cases, the local charging mechanism could be abandoned leaving no mechanism to continue to fund the buses, and with no progress made on delivering real transport infrastructure either.

15) Do you have any comments on the proposed charge levels?

The charges will be significantly detrimental to those working in lower paid jobs.

16) Do you have any comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions, and reimbursements?

17) Do you have any other comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions and reimbursements?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the discounts and exemptions will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress. 

The exemptions scheme looks complex and adds to the overall complexity of the proposals. Specifically in this case, the proposals introduce an element of means testing into the process, that will be complex and bureaucratic to administer, as well as adding to the disbenefit of moving from benefits into work, when the high effective marginal tax rate (benefit withdrawal rate) for those on universal credit is already a significantly problematic disincentive to work. It is also unclear, for example, why a care worker who might have perfectly viable alternatives to driving like cycling would be exempt, but an electrician or plumber who has no choice but use a van to carry tools isn’t exempt.

18) Taking into account the improvements suggested above, are there any changes to the proposals or additional measures that would help enhance or address impacts on you / your business / your organisation and the way you travel?

No further comments

19) Please comment if you feel any of the proposals would either positively or negatively affect or impact on [people or groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010].

No further comments

Cambridge Local Plan Consultation: Building a Bigger, Better Cambridge

Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Councils have been consulting on the next local plan that will determine how the Cambridge sub-region is developed over the next few years. This is my responses to their initial consultation that closed recently.

This is a personal response and doesn't represent the views of any other organisation.

Question 2. Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible.

As indicated in answering Q39, the Green Belt around Cambridge should be reviewed, and where sites currently within the Greenbelt can be developed at high density and with excellent sustainable transport (ie close to major employment sites), those sites should be removed from the Green Belt and the sites developed. This would suggest a number of new sites that could be delivered with many new homes, for example:

• The West Fields between Grange Road and the M11 – Given the local housing shortage and feasibility of developing this area with excellent walking, cycling and public transport links to key employment sites like the City Centre and West Cambridge site, coupled with its lack of special or notable features beyond ordinary agricultural land, its hard to imagine a better or more appropriate site for new housing, and it should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing.
• Much of the land between Cambridge and Shelford could be allocated to housing, with a new public transport corridor and cycle network linking to the Addenbrookes bio-medical campus.
• The field bounded by Long Road, Hobson Brook, the Guided Busway and Clare/Peterhouse sports ground is perfectly placed for housing with sustainable transport.
• Land between Milton village and the railway could be developed around the proposed rowing lake, within easy sustainable commuting distance of the Science Parks area.

Question 4. Do you agree that planning to 2040 is an appropriate date in the future to plan for? If not, what would be a more appropriate date and why?

This date is too far into the future – reflecting our poor ability to deliver in a timely fashion – in particular infrastructure. Plans should be accelerated for public transport improvements (e.g. Cam Metro or alternative area wide rapid transit, Cambridge South Station etc), so housing can be delivered sooner.

Question 5. Do you think we have identified the right cross-boundary issues and initiatives that affect ourselves and neighbouring areas?

A Unitary Authority is urgently required to cover the Cambridge sub-region (Cambridge, South Cambs and possibly slightly larger). The current system is a threat to democracy, as with so many different authorities and bodies involved without consistent political leadership (Cambridge City Council, South Cambs District, Cambs County, The Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, MPs, GCP etc) there is no real accountability – so developing planning policies becomes a technocratic exercise in evidencing how proposals meet dictated overall objectives e.g. on number of new homes required. The next local plan should not be decided on the basis of a questionnaire or consultation like this - there needs to be recognition that many of these questions are political issues (like how fast should Cambridge grow), and they should be decided by politicians making a case, and people voting for those that outline the plans they most agree with. With better democratic accountability, we could have real choice to be bolder and more radical, and with less scope for objections blocking good plans, and less likelihood poor developments will be permitted. All local authority leaders should be urgently calling on the government to create a single unitary authority to allow greater Cambridge to reach its potential.

Question 6. Do you agree with the potential big themes for the Local Plan?

Broadly yes, although there is not enough emphasis on growth - taking advantage of the unique position and opportunity available for the Cambridge sub region to develop further the knowledge based economy and build more globally significant technology companies.

Question 8. How should the Local Plan help us achieve net zero carbon by 2050?

The key element in achieving net zero is developing sustainable transport networks within current and in particular new developments. This involves prioritising walking, cycling and sustainable public transport, and de-prioritising private motor vehicles.

It will be important that new housing is built with easy walking and cycling access to employment sites and other facilities (hence the importance of developing sites such as the west fields) The city should accelerate plans to require all motor vehicles using the city to become zero emission e.g. electric cars and buses. No new buildings should use fossil fuels for space heating or other domestic purposes. Buildings should be designed to not require significant heating in winter or cooling in summer.

Question 13. How do you think we should improve the green space network?

The local plan should maintain protection of all the special parts of Cambridge (e.g. Gog Magogs,
Grantchester Meadows, the River corridor generally). New developments should include significant green areas. The plan should prohibit allowing minimum open space requirements on new developments to be bought out with cash contributions – there needs to be a mechanism to create more substantial open spaces even if land is only developed in small parcels none of which on their own would result in the creation of significant new open space.

Question 15. Do you agree that we should aim to increase tree cover across the area?

Yes.

Question 16. How should the Local Plan help us achieve 'good growth' that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion?

Key to social inclusion is building better public transport networks and improving cycling and walking routes at the expense of roads busy with motor vehicles. Cycling in particular needs a comprehensive interconnected network of cycle routes segregated from other traffic and pedestrians, with priority over motor vehicles.

Ensure local facilities are built at the same time as housing – with private facilities – shops, pubs, sports facilities etc as important as public sector facilities like schools and community centres.

Public Houses should be provided in all new developments. The Councils have belatedly come round to the idea of protecting existing pubs, recognising their value as community assets, but fail to recognise the value of pubs as community facilities in new developments, with pubs usually a poorly executed afterthought. The Fox in Bar Hill and Monkfield Arms in Cambourne are just bland, generic ‘estate’ type pubs. Eddington and Great Knighton don’t appear to have any new pubs at all. A lack of facilities like pubs helps turn these neighbourhoods into dormitory suburbs, with less social cohesion and with increased travel required for leisure.

Ensure all new communities have a good mix of tenures and types of housing.

Question 17. How do you think our plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals?

Too much new house building is entirely delivered by large, volume, national housebuilders, with no input from the residents that will live there, or the Cambridge context. Planning policies should encourage more self-built housing, and smaller more distinctive developments. Where consultations are held, they should be listened to, instead of holding them and then just doing whatever the developer wanted to do anyway.

Question 18. How do you think we can make sure that we achieve safe and inclusive communities when planning new development?

Local police stations or outposts and higher levels of community policing.

Question 19. How do you think new developments should support healthy lifestyles?

Building high quality cycling infrastructure and encouraging higher cycling rates and lower car usage is the most significant contribution that can be made to support healthy lifestyles. Research indicates a number of significant health benefits from active commuting.

Sports facilities. Ensure there are sufficient green spaces which are suitable and available for events like parkrun. Fund significant sports facilities like a Rowing lake and Triathlon Centre from s106 agreements. Include more sports fields in new developments – too many of the sports fields currently in the city are only available to University members.

Question 20. How do you think we should achieve improvements in air quality?

Build all new developments as zero carbon, with no fossil fuels at all burnt in the new development areas for transport or heating buildings.

Question 21. How should the Local Plan protect our heritage and ensure new development is well designed? Question 23. How do you think we could ensure that new development is as well-designed as possible?

Far too few quality public buildings are built. Outside of the University, with very few exceptions (new mosque, Marmalade Lane), few new developments in Cambridge achieve notable quality, let alone outstanding. Too many are very poor – the Marque, Cambridge Leisure Park and Travelodge, the new hotel at Cambridge North Station, and much new housing is bland and uninspired. Planning policies should encourage the development of at least some landmark buildings within each site (high quality materials and design, intended to stand the tests of time), and all large new development sites should aim for consistent high-quality design and materials throughout the site.

Question 24. How important do you think continuing economic growth is for the next Local Plan?

Very Important. The Cambridge sub-region is uniquely placed to grow rapidly in knowledge-based
industries such as software and biotech. This relies on the network effects of the co-location of new
businesses with Cambridge University and existing businesses, talent and entrepreneurs. By supporting rapid growth, as well as an important role supporting the national economy, breakthroughs will be made that might not otherwise happen - there are cancers that will be cured quicker, and advances in technology essential to tackling climate change and many other problems that simply won’t happen anything like as quickly if we don’t maximise the growth of the Cambridge knowledge based economy, and this economic advantage will be lost to the UK permanently if we don’t encourage growth in the Cambridge sub-region. Saying that Cambridge has had enough growth, and new growth needs to be elsewhere would be a reckless neglect of the current opportunity, the next local plan should encourage that growth explicitly, and political leaders should be much bolder in supporting that.

Question 25. What kind of business and industrial space do you think is most needed in the area?

Too much of the office space needed by tech companies seems to be controlled by the Colleges and small numbers of surveyors and estate agents. As a result, there is not enough flexibility in options
available, particularly for high growth companies. Agents and landlords demanding minimum lease terms of 5-10 years is not uncommon – wholly inappropriate for companies that may be growing at 50-100% a year. New development should prioritise flexible configuration buildings to be let on flexible lease terms.

The other omission is allocating space within the subregion for large tech company headquarter buildings – areas that can allocated to accommodate the custom built headquarters and R+D divisions of the next Arm or CSR. Whilst it is unlikely to be possible to allocate such space immediately adjacent to the City, sites should be identified for this purpose along public transport corridors, and where there are or is potential for excellent cycle access.

Question 26. Do you think we should be protecting existing business and industrial space?

Generally yes, but the retail sheds south of Newmarket Road between Coldhams Lane and Coldhams
Common, along with the Beehive centre are relics from a past age of car based shopping trips – the retail sheds should all go and be replaced by housing, which would be within easy reach by cycling and walking from the City Centre and the new Chisholm Trail.

Question 27. How should we balance supporting our knowledge-intensive sectors, with creating a wide range of different jobs? What kind of jobs would you like to see created in the area?

Growth should focus on high value knowledge-based employment sectors and businesses to support
these sectors, as Cambridge has special strengths in these areas and the benefits to the City and Country should be maximised.

Question 30. What approach should the next plan take to supporting or managing tourism in Cambridge and the rural area?

Most of the main tourist sites are already very busy. We shouldn’t encourage much more of it, and should ensure current tourism doesn’t have an impact on local environment, e.g. pollution/congestion from tourist coaches.

Question 32. Do you think we should plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government, to provide flexibility to support the growing economy?

Yes – strongly agree – we should aim for as rapid growth of housing as can be done at high quality and with great transport infrastructure, as long as this is supported by the continued growth of knowledge based industry.

Question 33. What kind of housing do you think we should provide?

Focus on making the market price of housing affordable to as many people as possible, rather than
sucking all the value out of new development by insisting on very high % levels of below market priced housing to be rationed and allocated by the Councils. This should enable more of the planning gain to be taxed and used to provide high quality sustainable transport that everyone will benefit from and that is required to meet carbon neutral goals. Some traditional affordable housing is clearly needed, but more affordable housing is best delivered by just building a lot more housing in the area.

Question 35. How should we ensure a high standard of housing is built in our area?

Local housing design standards should adopt design principals advocated by groups such as
Createstreets (www.createstreets.com).

Question 36. How should the Local Plan ensure the right infrastructure is provided in line with
development?

The local plan should provide for a rapid transit system, including underground sections to cover the
centre of Cambridge. This can be paid for by taxing the uplift in values from new housing developments.

Space needs to be made available for segregated cycle routes.

All new properties should be built with fibre to the premises internet connections.

Question 37. How should we encourage a shift away from car use and towards more sustainable modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking?

Stop building car-centric development like we do now – make proper provision for cycling.

Question 39. Should we look to remove land from the Green Belt if evidence shows it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances, helping us reduce our climate impacts?

Yes – the current Green Belt should be reviewed, with all ‘non-special’ areas adjacent to Cambridge
removed from the Greenbelt, to be replaced with protection for important wildlife or green sites, and a green belt further out from Cambridge. All other sites within the newly expanded Green Belt should be considered for housing if they can be delivered with sustainable transport to all required facilities.

Question 41. Do you think the Local Plan should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries (frameworks), allowing more homes on sites that become available?

Yes – villages should be allowed to expand, particularly if it helps them become self-sufficient in local services such as healthcare, shops and community facilities.

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6
1 Edge of Cambridge – Greenbelt – and move the green belt out.
2 Densification of existing urban sites
3 Public transport corridors
4 Disperal – growth of existing villages

Question 43. What do you think about densification?

Hard to achieve in areas already developed, but fine in principal as long as sufficient green open spaces retained.

Question 44. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge on land outside the
Green Belt?

Shouldn't do this and encourage commuting through the Green Belt if there were sites in the current
Greenbelt that were easier to deliver with sustainable transport to the key employment sites.

Question 45. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge in the Green Belt?

The most appropriate area for new development.

Question 46. What do you think about creating planned new settlements?

Councils should focus on delivering the ones already planned – eg why has Northstowe taken so long
when the housing need has been so urgent for so long? – its not as if the delay has resulted in really great design or even adequate cycling infrastructure – unless there is a fundamental change in transport thinking, the new settlements will continue to be car based dormitory towns for Cambridge commuters.

Question 48. What do you think about siting development along transport corridors?

The most sensible way to expand Cambridge beyond the City.

How not to build a cycle park

A brand new, recently opened office building in Cambridge has been built with the worst cycle parking access I have ever seen. The block attracts some of the highest rents in the city, and there are very limited car parking spaces available to people working in the block, so almost everyone is expected to arrive by bike, foot or public transport. You're going to need a big cycle park, and here it is, in the basement of the building:

So far so good. But I am full of admiration for the cyclists that have managed to get their bikes down there. This is the challenge required to use it...

Having got through the double door entrance, its down two steep flights of stairs, either carrying your bike, or using the slippery side ramps:

Then that special late addition to the original planning application, a sharp right angled turn:

And then its on to the third flight of stairs, and finally on through the two sets of fire doors:

A fit, able-bodied cyclist with a light bike and no panniers would struggle with these stairs - anyone else - I suspect the cycle park is utterly useless. For the lucky few with car parking spaces, there is of course a ramp that would be much better for cyclists:

But any cyclist daring to try using this faces the wrath of the building managers. Remember this is a brand new, high profile office building in the cycling capital of the UK - how has something so rubbish been built? Do we blame the developers who built it, or the Council that gave it planning permission? Perhaps we should ask Alexa?

If you are fed up with this kind of nonsense, please considering joining the Charity Camcycle (https://www.camcycle.org.uk/membership/join/) - Camcycle volunteers spend a lot of time reviewing and commenting on planning applications to try stopping stuff like this getting through - sometimes complaints are ignored by the planners, sometimes late amendments slip through the net, but many, many times applications are improved for cyclists with benefits for all road users.

Letting off Steam

Its difficult to express how angry I am with Teresa May and the Conservative Party right now. 

I spent many years actively involved in the party - I was elected twice to Cambridge City Council, where despite the efforts of an entire constituency association since we currently have no Councillors. I gave up investing my time in vast quantities because of frustration at how useless the party was, and how hard the resistance to changing that was. There was no point destroying my life to help the party make progress, when surrounded by so many people in the party trying to undermine me.

The party on the ground has become a shell, the number of activists is tiny compared to our opponents (and I don't think this is just because I live in Cambridge). The Lib Dems here must have delivered the entire constituency around a dozen times this election, Labour not much less - both clearly had many hundreds of people on the ground during the campaign. I'm told Bedford has 1,000 momentum members. 

But the party's behaviour, and Teresa May's in particular during this election has been beneath contempt. There was no leadership, no vision, no intellectual answer to Corbyn, despite ever more abuse and dishonesty from the left, there was no effective response, no attempt to fight on the party's record over the last 7 years, and they never once saw the result coming. May hid from debate most of the campaign. The electorate were treated with complete contempt, as if just mentioning the word Corbyn would deliver victory. There is no point trying to create 'Strong and Stable' as a brand if your behaviour is completely contradictory to the brand values. 

But why would party members want to get involved in this organisation when they too were treated with such contempt. Candidate selections conducted by an opaque clique. People who had done nothing for the party fast-tracked to finals for successive majority seats, whilst others were blocked. Candidates imposed on minority seats with no member involvement. The manifesto was a disaster (actually still is) - again doubtless the work of a small clique, without proper scrutiny, and seemingly devoid of any clear principles or positive vision. Price controls, industrial strategy, etc, etc why would any conservative want to support this stuff. It did however contain several policies each individually toxic enough to turn off large parts of the electorate, for no particularly good reason - fox hunting, dementia tax etc. The tragedy is, that done well, and with decent planning, we could have been on the way to a Conservative government, with a good majority, boldly reforming society for the better. A proper adult conversation with people about the future of the NHS and social care. Real reform on tax simplification. A plan to build the houses we desperately need. Instead we have fudge.

I'd still like to be involved in politics, but I want something I can get behind - competently run, open accountable and transparent in how it works, democratic. Socially liberal, tolerant and international in outlook, whilst fighting tooth and nail against the Socialist vision of state control that causes chaos and misery whenever and wherever it is applied. I spent years trying to change the party from within. Maybe it needs a party within a party to drive reform, because if they go on like this, one day people will stop voting for them just because they are the established centre right party, candidate selection will cease to be the remaining source of power in the party, and the whole thing will collapse.

The party is still toxic up and down the Country - you get desensitised to the attacks from the left, but many Corbyn supporters just constantly stream vile abuse across social media. The party never challenges this, they just soak it up, not at all worried that huge numbers of normal, professional people are getting behind a party led by marxist terrorist sympathisers. The professional party are hopeless and the leadership appears to be utterly clueless, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Meanwhile, we have a government in hock to the DUP and a now infinitely harder brexit negotiation to ponder. Happy days.

Response to Cambridge City Deal Consultation

Below is my personal response to the current city deal consultation closing on 10th October.

I haven’t completed the questions, as they miss the point - the whole package of proposals is misguided. I also don’t think it is helpful focussing consultation on how the changes would affect the individual consultee in their current circumstances - when many people are concerned on how the proposals will impact the future development of Greater Cambridge for everyone. For the record, I usually cycle to work, and most of these proposals will have little or no impact on my personal commute at the moment - but then I am currently lucky enough to be living in housing a short cycle ride from my place of work.

Its difficult to express how hopelessly inadequate I feel the current proposals are to the challenge in hand - which to my mind is to deliver the growth of Cambridge with lots more housing and sustainable transport of a type and quality that will cause existing residents of Cambridge and the surrounding areas to welcome and embrace growth. We need to be able to look back in decades time and be proud of new housing and transport, rather than fear every new housing planning application and its impact on journeys as happens now.

The current proposals do not appear to be directed by the future development needs of Cambridge but by the obsession that someone, somewhere has with using Cambridge as a guinea pig for novel demand management techniques as the only or main tool to tackle future Cambridge congestion. Chopping down trees on Milton Road to build bus lanes, congestion charging, shutting roads, workplace charging - the local Councils have been trying to impose these on Cambridge for decades, and they completely miss the point which is that we need much more new capacity for sustainable transport.

Specifically, my problems with the current proposals:

• There is not enough linkage between transport improvements and new housing developments. We need to identify more sites for housing nearer Cambridge that can be served by good quality off road public transport, and develop housing there with high levels of quality and quantity.
• The budget is limited by what the government says it will provide - we should budget what is needed to provide sensible levels of additional capacity, and make the case to government for more funding, or divert more of the uplift in value from new housing developments to building the transport.
• There is far too much reliance on demand management. These measures will mostly impact those who work in low paid jobs in the City, who cannot afford to live in the City and need to commute in. As such, these measures are grossly socially inequitable. Any demand management should start with real and significant new sustainable transport options. If new sustainable transport isn’t good enough to get significant numbers of people out of their cars, you won’t solve the problem with ever more oppressive demand management. 
• The value for money of some of the options looks awful (in terms of the incredible costs being discussed for what should be relatively trivial changes such as new bus lanes).
• The plans are underwhelming in terms of new capacity for cycling and walking, and non-existent in terms of new off road capacity for other public transport. We need to look at where corridors can be identified to build new capacity (be it guided bus, light or heavy rail, trams or other more futuristic solutions) to connect housing to jobs and leisure opportunities. If corridors can’t be created above ground, we need to look at tunnelling.

I can’t recall a previous set of proposals in Cambridge that have attracted such near universal derision as the current City Deal plans - or the scale of significant alternative proposals from third-parties aghast at what is being suggested.

We are living in one of the most economically dynamic growth areas on the planet. Please tell me we can do better than what is being proposed here. You need to go back to the drawing board (ideally not using expensive consultants who appear to have a limited understanding of the Cambridge context).

BBC White Paper

Can any of my friends in politics explain why for the love of god we need to create a new completely-unenforceable offence of watching iPlayer without a TV licence, when there are technical solutions already in use by many many media organisations who have found ways to ensure only those that have paid for their content can watch or read it?

The TV licence is past its sell by date and needs to go now. It is the most regressive form of taxation on the statute book - a single parent on benefits pays the same as Richard Branson (and rather more than the Queen). Hundreds of thousands of people are prosecuted and fined annually for licence evasion - disproportionally women and the less well off. Every single one of these prosecutions occurs because a vulnerable person caves in to a TV licensing campaign of harassment and threats directed at everyone who legitimately or not doesn't have a license - and they self-incriminate. There is no effective way to gather evidence of the offence being committed without snooping into people's private homes and bullying or conning them.

Working on the basis that the government isn't intending to give TV licensing access to everyone's internet history (although scarily with Teresa May in the Home Office its hard to be sure this is the case) - watching iPlayer without a license will be a new offence with no plausible method of enforcing the law. 'Have you watched iPlayer without a licence?' 'Go away its none of your business' would appear to be completely effective. It doesn't need to be against the law - just put it behind a paywall (this doesn't require a new law, or statutory instrument as the government is thinking of doing to avoid debate and scrutiny).

Of course we know why they don't want to do that. For the same reason the white paper came out against decriminalising the licence fee - the number of people willing to pay for it would just collapse - and then how would they find the money to pay the 91 BBC executives currently earning more than the Prime Minister.