Cambridge South new station opening

[HSTEd]

I invite these people to visit various london stations to experience what an overloaded station looks like.

I can't imagine any feasible levle of traffic could do that in Cambridge.

 

[eastdyke]

That was my initial thought when I saw it. However, I seem to recall a view that if you generally supported an improvement but felt something was insufficient you should oppose it as bonkers as that sounds. However, the ramifications and appearances are quite risky. I do hope that this is after exhaustive attempts to engage on this matter*

*not expecting it to be the case but ever hopeful, ever positive.

The time for engagement has passed. The time for objection has passed [2nd August from memory] so I assume that the objection has been lodged in response to the TWA Order (referenced at post #297 above).
I expect that there will need to be a Public Inquiry (date provisionally set for 22nd November) at which any valid objections can be heard, together with rebuttals from the sponsors.

The full documents can be found here:

Cambridge South station - Network Rail

The Department for Transport published a Strategic Outline Business Case in November 2017 for a new railway station in the south of Cambridge.

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[Bald Rick]

Their objection is, as objections go, well presented, researched and a cogent argument.

However, the issue is that there isn’t the money to put in place provision for high end forecasts for every (or indeed any) rail scheme. We certainly wouldn’t want to do that for road schemes. And, as we know, demand on the railway has, err, rather shifted in the past 17 months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==

I expect that there will need to be a Public Enquiry at which any valid objections can be heard, together with rebuttals from the sponsors.

Correct.

 

[eastdyke]

Their objection is, as objections go, well presented, researched and a cogent argument.

However, the issue is that there isn’t the money to put in place provision for high end forecasts for every (or indeed any) rail scheme. And, as we know, demand on the railway has, err, rather shifted in the past 17 months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==



Correct.

Apols for my typo of 'Inquiry'

 

[camflyer]

Objection lodged by Smarter Cambridge Transport.

Testing the definition of “Smarter”

If there only was an already bigger station only about a mile away?

Cambridge South make sense as it is, it's not supposed to be a transport hub for the whole south of the city. Better off adding extra capacity at other stations in the commuter belt (which serves Cambridge and London) as well as Cambridge "Central" with an eastern entrance and a properly integrated local transport system not called CAM.

Besides, unless they start concreting over a lot of Hobson's Park, where does the space come for a bigger station?

 

[Meerkat]

So which bits do they think are below capacity? Presumably the platforms are pretty standard, so maybe the footbridge? Seems unlikely that would get dangerously overcrowded, and if it did bunging in another footbridge isn’t a tragically disruptive project.

 

[bspahh]

So which bits do they think are below capacity? Presumably the platforms are pretty standard, so maybe the footbridge? Seems unlikely that would get dangerously overcrowded, and if it did bunging in another footbridge isn’t a tragically disruptive project.

The car parking is undersize, but that is by design.

 

[Class 170101]

If there only was an already bigger station only about a mile away?

Cambridge South make sense as it is, it's not supposed to be a transport hub for the whole south of the city. Better off adding extra capacity at other stations in the commuter belt (which serves Cambridge and London) as well as Cambridge "Central" with an eastern entrance and a properly integrated local transport system not called CAM.

If I lived in north or south Cambridge I wouldn't travel to Central Cambridge to get a train if I could get it from either of current Cambridge North or the future Cambridge South due to difficulties getting into Cambridge Central, its not car friendly in my limited experience.

Besides, unless they start concreting over a lot of Hobson's Park, where does the space come for a bigger station?

I guess one needs them to define what more space means to them. We could build upwards it would equal more square metres of space and not concrete over Hobson's Park but I doubt that is what they mean.

 

[Bald Rick]

We could build upwards it would equal more square metres of space and not concrete over Hobson's Park but I doubt that is what they mean.

That’s my reading of their proposal, ie build a bigger station over the tracks. Completely unnecessary.

 

[Ianno87]

The objection seems to be aiming to load so much cost and gold plating onto the station specification to sink the case for it completely.

It would be lovely to design the station like that of course, but a dose of reality is needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==

So which bits do they think are below capacity? Presumably the platforms are pretty standard, so maybe the footbridge? Seems unlikely that would get dangerously overcrowded, and if it did bunging in another footbridge isn’t a tragically disruptive project.

There probably enough space around the site that, if push came to shove, you could expand the capacity of the station in future if you really had to, but not for Day 1

 

[camflyer]

If I lived in north or south Cambridge I wouldn't travel to Central Cambridge to get a train if I could get it from either of current Cambridge North or the future Cambridge South due to difficulties getting into Cambridge Central, its not car friendly in my limited experience.

Which is why the priority should be improving public transport access to Cambridge Hauptbahnhof so that people don't try to drive to the station.

The objection seems to be aiming to load so much cost and gold plating onto the station specification to sink the case for it completely.

At a time when rail projects are being scrapped and descoped, arguing for a more expensive station doesn't sound like a good way of getting it built.

There are plans to expand the Biomedical Campus over the next 20 years but we can worry about upgrading the station later.

 

[Class 170101]

Which is why the priority should be improving public transport access to Cambridge Hauptbahnhof so that people don't try to drive to the station.

Improvements to public transport into the Central Station probably but the station isn't suitable for terminating bus services, so upon return the buses won't be there to meet people off trains, as far as I recall. If they want to drive to Cambridge North or Cambridge South I would say provide for them if they are coming in from the outskirts of Cambridge

At a time when rail projects are being scrapped and descoped, arguing for a more expensive station doesn't sound like a good way of getting it built.

There are plans to expand the Biomedical Campus over the next 20 years but we can worry about upgrading the station later.

I suppose the only question here is how much foresight politicans have or perhaps more appropriately want to use. Things tend to cost more overall if you upgrade something after opening rather than doing the job properly the first time around. If the politicans are only looking at the current electoral cycle (to 2024) or maybe the next (to 2029) then future proofing Cambridge South is not in their interest (it's some other politicans' problem) but if they did use foresight, however clouded that might be for all of us not just the political class right now, then they would do the job once rather than twice.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suppose the only question here is how much foresight politicans have or perhaps more appropriately want to use. Things tend to cost more overall if you upgrade something after opening rather than doing the job properly the first time around. If the politicans are only looking at the current electoral cycle (to 2024) or maybe the next (to 2029) then future proofing Cambridge South is not in their interest (it's some other politicans' problem) but if they did use foresight, however clouded that might be for all of us not just the political class right now, then they would do the job once rather than twice.

While that's true, you also have to balance that against the risk of over-engineering now for something that it might turn out is never needed (Bletchley viaduct, anyone?), so really it's a question of balance, not a question of always building the biggest thing you can today. If (hypothetically, plucking some figures out of the air) building a bigger station now saves 20% of the construction costs compared to building a smaller station and then having to extend it in 15 years' or so's time, but as far as you can predict there's only a 50% chance that the bigger station will actually be needed, then on balance you're still probably financially better off building the smaller station for now - even if it means a 50% chance that 15 years later people are complaining of lack of foresight.

 

[edwin_m]

While that's true, you also have to balance that against the risk of over-engineering now for something that it might turn out is never needed (Bletchley viaduct, anyone?), so really it's a question of balance, not a question of always building the biggest thing you can today. If (hypothetically, plucking some figures out of the air) building a bigger station now saves 20% of the construction costs compared to building a smaller station and then having to extend it in 15 years' or so's time, but as far as you can predict there's only a 50% chance that the bigger station will actually be needed, then on balance you're still probably financially better off building the smaller station for now - even if it means a 50% chance that 15 years later people are complaining of lack of foresight.

If building on a greenfield site there might be more justification to future-proof, because anything added later would have to be built around the working railway. But that doesn't apply here because it will have to be built around the working railway either way.

 

[jopsuk]

That was my initial thought when I saw it. However, I seem to recall a view that if you generally supported an improvement but felt something was insufficient you should oppose it as bonkers as that sounds. However, the ramifications and appearances are quite risky. I do hope that this is after exhaustive attempts to engage on this matter*

*not expecting it to be the case but ever hopeful, ever positive.

Smarter Cambridge Transport have indeed responded at every stage so far, with a consistent message that the proposed station is of a poor design.

 

[WesternBiker]

Am I missing something here?

Looking at the station design it seems to provide reasonably generous accommodation for the 2m+ or so passengers predicted - especially compared with (say) the designs for the new West Drayton station (which handles 2m already) and Hayes & Harlington (which handles around double that number). That implies to me it could probably cope with larger numbers, should they materialise.

 

[jopsuk]

I think there's been too much focus on the idea that station won't handle the numbers, and not enough on that it is a poor design that doesn't connect well to especially bus services, but also has surprisingly poor cycle access given the location

 

[camflyer]

I think there's been too much focus on the idea that station won't handle the numbers, and not enough on that it is a poor design that doesn't connect well to especially bus services, but also has surprisingly poor cycle access given the location

Surely the connection with bus services is outside of Network Rail's control.

 

[eastdyke]

I think there's been too much focus on the idea that station won't handle the numbers, and not enough on that it is a poor design that doesn't connect well to especially bus services, but also has surprisingly poor cycle access given the location

But the main* aim of the station is not to create a new transport hub is it? It is to provide access, including from long distances, to the Internationally important Biomedical Campus / Hospital Sites / high quality area of employment in a small city where road use gets ever more difficult by the day. It is more a destination than a hub. In transport terms, a small scale equivalent of say Canary Wharf.

*It will cater for access from some new development of housing on the southern fringe but that is not the raison dêtre, the development alone would never justify a station.

Surely the connection with bus services is outside of Network Rail's control.

It is not outwith the control of other stakeholders [but see above].

 

[Class 170101]

Surely the connection with bus services is outside of Network Rail's control.

Fortunately yes it is out of NR to provide the actual services. However a proper space to enable operators provide a seamless service should bus operators wish to so should not be.

 

[bspahh]

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/new-cambridge-south-railway-station-22640843 says:

South Cambridgeshire District Council supports the plans 'in principle', but council documents reveal there are outstanding biodiversity impact concerns

The South Cambridgeshire Council meeting on January 10th has this agenda document where pages 41-46 are:

Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order OBJ24 South Cambridgeshire District Council

Thank you for your letter dated 18 November providing an update on Network Rail’s (NR) response to the objections raised by South Cambridgeshire District Council. Your correspondence follows on from meetings between the officers for the Council and NR Consents Manager and NR Planning Manager in recent weeks.

This letter provides advice from officers on the status of the Council’s objections. The purpose of the letter is to aid ongoing discussions with NR at officer level. To be clear, the advice within this letter is given at officer level and does not constitute the formal position of the Council, which will be provided in the Council’s Proof of Evidence and our Statement of Common Ground for the Public Inquiry.

I have addressed each of the objections raised in the Council’s Statement of Case as summarised in Section 6 of our statement. I have reordered these by grouping them under three key headings, which broadly form the topics on which the Council intends to provide evidence at the Public Inquiry. As discussions on the draft planning conditions are still in progress, this letter does not confirm the Council’s position on the proposed draft condition wording, other than where specifically referred to. For the avoidance of doubt, the omission of comments on any draft conditions does not imply agreement to them. Further correspondence will be provided in response to the updated draft conditions sent by NR Planning Manager on 22 November.

Impact on trees
1. Loss of trees
The loss of trees along the railway line and across the scheme must be minimised, and a condition for tree protection measures must be imposed, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1, NH/2, and NH/4. This matter was raised in our Statement of Case and has not been addressed in your letter. The Council maintains its objection on this ground. Biodiversity net gain
2. Deliverability of biodiversity net gain
The application has not provided sufficient Information to demonstrate the 10% biodiversity net gain target is achievable and can provide appropriate mitigation on or near to the site, and as a result has not demonstrated compliance with Local Plan 2018 policy NH/4, and NPPF 2021 paragraph 174.

Your letter refers to conditions to secure the delivery of the 10% BNG target. While this condition is necessary to approve the detail of the ecological mitigation, this is not a sufficient response to the matter above as it does not demonstrate that this target is achievable and can provide appropriate mitigation. This is because there is no further information about the deliverability of biodiversity enhancements.

Your earlier letter dated 1 October and meetings with the NR Consents Manager have confirmed that NR has entered into discussions with Cambridgeshire County Council with a view to securing an Options Agreement for the provision of all the BNG units required to meet the 10% target at Lower Valley Farm in Fulbourn.

The letter advised that once discussion have progressed further with the County Council, NR will be able to provide confirmation that it has secured the mechanism for delivering the required 10% BNG. Officers have been advised that NR are aiming to secure the Option Agreement with the County Council ahead of the public inquiry.

In addition to this, officers understand that the BNG calculations submitted with the TWAO application for the ‘worst case scenario’ are being updated to reflect the changes to the site compound area and to landscaping and that the calculations will be reissued to the Council, however officers have not had sight of this.

The Council currently maintains its objection on these grounds which have not been addressed. Officers look forward to receiving the updated BNG calculations and further information on the proposed mitigation to review before the public inquiry. This additional information will be reviewed by the Council before it can consider whether this matter has been resolved.

Planning

3. LVIA mitigation
The application does not provide sufficient detail about the landscape proposals to provide unreserved assurance of the success of the LVIA mitigation, as required by Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1, NH/2 and NH/8.

Your letter refers to the TWAO application as comparable to an outline planning permission which requires suitable planning conditions requiring the local planning authority to agree the detail of the landscaping proposals. Officers advise that the Council accepts that the detail will come forward through the discharge of conditions for the detailed station design and landscape proposals, and that this matter cannot be resolved at this stage.

4. Deemed planning consent drawings

The deemed planning consent drawings must provide more information to control the scale and height of the substation and railway systems compound to the south of Addenbrooke’s Road, in order that the buildings integrate into the rural location, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1, NH/2 and NH/8.

Your letter refers to Deemed Planning Drawing – Parameter Plan ‘heights’(158454- ARC-ZZ-ZZ-DRG-LEP- 000102 P01) and highlights that this limits the maximum height of structures to 18m above ordnance datum (AOD). You explain that based on the existing AOD, the maximum height of structures would be 4m. The detail of the structures and the landscaping would be come forward through the discharge of conditions. Officers advise that the Council accepts this matter has been resolved.

Notwithstanding this, it is recommended for the avoidance of doubt that this drawing is updated to refer to maximum building heights in the annotations or drawing title.

5. Noise mitigation and attenuation at Great Shelford

Site-specific noise mitigation and attenuation measures must be included in the Code of Construction Practice for locations where works will occur that have the potential to adversely impact residential areas of Great Shelford, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and SC/10.

This matter was raised in our Statement of Case and has not been addressed in your letter. The Council maintains its objection on this ground.

6. Vibration impacts at Shrepreth Branch Junction

Good and early engagement with the Council and residents on both the mitigation measures and the consultation strategy to minimise the disruption from major construction ground-borne vibration impacts at Shepreth Branch Junction to local residents and impact on mental health, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and SC/10.

This matter was raised in our Statement of Case and has not been addressed in your letter. The Council maintains its objection on this ground.

7. Air quality monitoring on the adjacent minor residential roads

Further discussions to secure a programme to monitor the impact on air quality on the adjacent minor residential roads around the development, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and SC/12.

Your letter provides a detailed response which in summary advises that it is considered likely that any changes in emissions from idling vehicles would be offset by the reduction in vehicle movements to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The Council’s Environmental Health team has reviewed this and provided comments as follows.

Whilst the station is designed to discourage the use of cars with no drop off/pick up or waiting area, the reality is that for some customers this station will prove to be more convenient than either the north or central station, and a percentage of customers will be driven to the station; it is not realistic to assume that all customers will walk, cycle or use public transport to the station. This could impact on the local roads around the station due to people waiting/idling in cars to drop off or pick up.

However the Environmental Health team agrees with NR that this is obviously extremely difficult to quantify and air quality monitoring is unlikely to be an effective way to monitor this issue. Whilst this will impact on air quality around local roads this will be more effectively managed as part of a wider traffic management programme around the station which is a matter for the Highways Authority.

Therefore, officers advise that no further information is required on this matter.

8. Artificial lighting condition Replacement wording for the artificial lighting condition is required to secure compliance with the relevant guidance relating to construction and operational lighting, in accordance with local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and SC/9.

Your letter does not provide a response on this, however officers have discussed the wording of the draft condition for lighting details with the NR Planning Manager on 18 November. It was agreed that construction lighting would be covered in the Code of Construction Practice and that operational lighting would be controlled through a separate condition requiring submission of a detailed operational lighting scheme.

The wording of these conditions should require compliance with the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations contained within the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light - GN01/20 (2020)(or as superseded)’, as detailed in our comments. Officers advise that the Council requires agreed wording for a condition to be included in the Statement of Common Ground before the Council considers this matter to be resolved.

9. Engagement in wider Addenbrooke’s Hospital campus master planning

Network Rail must commit to engage in the review of the wider masterplan for the Addenbrooke’s Hospital campus currently being undertaken by the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to address connectivity issues, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and TI/2. Your letter advises that NR are engaging with the relevant stakeholders. Officers advise that no further information is requires on this matter at this stage.

10. Impact on cycle route NCN 11 at Shepreth Branch Junction

The works to the railway line at Shepreth Branch Junction must minimise the impact on the NCN 11 route and be considered carefully alongside the timing of works to other routes within the area to minimise disruption to users. Network Rail must consult with the Council, local cycling groups, Great Shelford Parish Council and other user groups.

Your letter refers to discussions with the Council. Officers discussed this matter with NR Consents Manager and NR Planning Manager on 5 October. NR explained that a short stretch of the NCN 11 route near Webster’s Level Crossing would be closed to allow for the construction compound. NR explained that this would be overnight closure only. NR has considered options to divert the route, however an alternative arrangement to marshal cyclists and pedestrians through the compound during the night closures is the preferred option.

While the detailed arrangements would be included in the Code of Construction Practice Part B to be secured through condition, officers requested that NR provide a commitment to minimise closures and to provide marshalled access, or a diversion, with specific reference to this area within the Code of Construction Practice Part A submitted with the TWAO application. Officers advise that the Council requires an updated Code of Construction Practice Part A to review before this matter can be resolved.

11. Works affecting the Scheduled Ancient Monument

The works affecting the Scheduled Monument must be minimal and must have the support of Historic England and Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Team, and mitigation must be secured through conditions, in accordance with Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and NH/14.

Your letter advises that NR are engaging with Historic England in respect of the Scheduled Ancient Monument, and that associated Scheduled Monument Consent will be applied for. Officers have also discussed the wording of a condition to secure a programme of archaeological investigation works, and are currently awaiting feedback from the Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Team with respect to the trigger for this condition in relation to other site investigation and enabling works. Feedback will be provided separately to the NR Planning Manager. Officers advise that the wording of an agreed condition must be included in the Statement of Common Ground before the Council considers this matter to be resolved.

12. Awarded Watercourse informative

An informative should be applied to advise the applicant of the requirement to obtain land drainage bye law approval by the Council for works affecting the awarded watercourse.

The Council has provided a copy of the Bye Law to the NR Consents Manager. Your letter advises that NR will continue to discus this matter with the Council. This matter will be dealt with the land drainage bye law approval which will come forward at a later date, and therefore officers advise that the Council considers this matter to be closed for the purposes of the TWAO application.

I trust the contents of this letter are clear, however if you have any queries then please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

[camflyer]

City Council also has objections

Cambridge City Council is expected to become the second local authority in the county to object to the proposed Cambridge South railway station over biodiversity concerns.

The city council has said it supports the aim for a new station but intends to object to the current Network Rail application on the grounds that more information about the project is required, while it also has biodiversity and wildlife concerns.

Why Cambridge City Council will object to Cambridge South railway station plans

While it supports the station in principle, it will raise a number of concern with Network Rail.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

 

[dk1]

Hard to believe these decisions sometimes. Cambridge seems to be such a forward thinking authority most of the time guided busway excepted.

 

[edwin_m]

Hard to believe these decisions sometimes. Cambridge seems to be such a forward thinking authority most of the time guided busway excepted.

Objecting is the a way to force NR to give them the information they consider they need, if they haven't managed to get it through discussion.

 

[camflyer]

Hard to believe these decisions sometimes. Cambridge seems to be such a forward thinking authority most of the time guided busway excepted.

To be fair, none of the objections looks fundamental so hopefully it can be all sorted out by planting a few more trees and shrubbery.

 

[dk1]

To be fair, none of the objections looks fundamental so hopefully it can be all sorted out by planting a few more trees and shrubbery.

Let’s hope so. Surely common sense will prevail.

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair, none of the objections looks fundamental so hopefully it can be all sorted out by planting a few more trees and shrubbery.

I have visions of a Cambridge Councillor demanding a shrubbery, in a high pitched voice, obviously.

 

[zwk500]

I have visions of a Cambridge Councillor demanding a shrubbery, in a high pitched voice, obviously.

 

[camflyer]

I have visions of a Cambridge Councillor demanding a shrubbery, in a high pitched voice, obviously.

It would be the most Cambridge thing in the world.

 

[47421]

recent railfuture mag https://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-like/east/rail-east/ summarises the project per below, not news to those following this but a helpful summary for those not following closely:

Some elements of the scheme include:
• Four tracks, on loops, for both stopping and non-stopping trains with widening of embankments in places
• Loop will start from just to the north of Nine Wells Bridge and will return to two tracks just south of Long Road bridge
• Shepreth Branch Junction is currently 30mph, which constrains services, and will be raised to 50mph “so that the new station does not become a bottleneck”; it will become an “extended double junction” with a new section of ‘down Royston’ track running parallel to the mainline
• At Hills Road the work will install a new crossover from the shunt spur, which will be extended — currently “there is only one path for a south to north train to get into the station” so “lots of time is wasted outside Cambridge station”
• Stopping up (closing) two level crossings with provision of a new accommodation bridge – “no objector has challenged the safety case for this”
• 4 x 250-metre platforms
• Length for 12-car (or equivalent) trains, with a couple of metres at each end for public safety and two metres to enable trains to be split
• Outer platforms would each be 3.5 metres wide and the island platform 8.9 metres wide
• Evacuation estimates are eight minutes to clear the platforms and 12 minutes for everyone to be completely clear of the station
• 1,000 cycle spaces • Spaces for five blue badge cars, with three drop-off points for taxis and three “kiss and drop” for private cars; objectors had asked for electric vehicle charging points for the disabled and staff spaces, which NR has now agreed to provide
• A ‘Changing Places’ toilet accessed from the concourse beyond the gate-line.

The timeline NR is hoping to achieve is: • Autumn 2022 — start of pre-construction • Spring 2023 — start of construction • 2025 — opening to public