Friday, 27 September 2019
The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) has started a
public consultation on the next steps for the Bottisham, Swaffhams and Horningsea "greenways". These mostly follow the existing cycle routes that exist between Cambridge and these villages, and most of the proposals are to improve these routes with a combination of path widening and junction improvements. In addition the proposals also include two significant new off-road routes (through Wing and around Quy).
The consultation covers the sections of these routes that are east of Ditton Meadows. It includes the existing NCN 51 route from Ditton Meadows to Newmarket Road Park and Ride (the Jubilee Cycleway) and on to Quy, Bottisham, Swaffham Bulbeck and Swaffham Prior, and the existing Wadloes Path route from Ditton Meadows to Fen Ditton and on to Horningsea.
Please take a look at the
consultation page on the GCP website and in particular to the
consultation leaflet (pdf). Then respond to the consultation survey. You can either do this online, using the
online survey questionnaire, or you can download and print out a
questionnaire which you can send in by post. The deadline for responding to the consultation is
28th October 2019. Note there is a single consultation leaflet, and a single survey questionnaire, that covers all three greenways together.
We at CTC Cambridge have prepared an analysis of the proposals and we invite you to use these comments to inform your own consultation response. You can read our detailed analysis below.
We plan to send our analysis to the GCP as our response, so if you agree or disagree with the comments we make below, or think we have missed anything, please do let us know by sending an email to our campaigning team at campaigning@ctc-cambridge.org.uk. We'd welcome your views.
Our main comments
If you are familiar with the GCP proposals then this section contains a summary of our main comments on all three greenways. For our full comments see the detailed sections that follow.
If you're not familiar with the proposals yet you might like to skip this section and go straight to the following sections, which list the proposals for each greenway, using images copied from the consultation leafler, and gives our view on them:
Bottisham Greenway: The proposals and our comments
Swaffhams Greenway: The proposals and our comments
HorningseaGreenway: The proposals and our comments
The consultation proposes a set of improvements to the network of existing cycle routes from Cambridge to Bottisham, the Swaffhams, Lode and Horningsea. The proposed new greenways mostly follow existing cycle routes and most of the proposals are improvements to the existing routes with a combination of path widening and junction improvements.
There are some good proposals. For example, there is a proposal to improve the "bow-tie" junction where the Wadloes Path meets Ditton Meadows. There is a proposal to improve the junction where NCN51 crosses Ditton Lane, where there is currently a rather awkward toucan crossing. There is a proposal for a new cycleway/footpath through the new "Wing" housing development which will emerge on Newmarket Road near the Airport Way roundabout. We agree with the need for improvements in all these locations, though we have some detailed comments on what is currently proposed.
In addition there is a proposal to provide a new off-road route between the existing tunnel under the A14 and the village of Stow-cum-Quy, which we strongly welcome.
The consultation also aims to fill in a number of "missing links" in order to provide continuous protected routes to Bottisham and the Swaffhams, and to Anglesey Abbey and Lode. We are pleased that this objective does seem to be reflected in the proposed designs. However we think that the proposals omit two important cycle links that should be included in the proposed network of greenways: between Bottisham and Swaffham Bulbeck, and between Horningsea Road and Bait's Bite Lock.
Detailed comments about all these locations are given further down this document, but here is a brief summary:
Wadloes Path/Ditton Meadows "bow-tie" junction (
Full details).
At the Wadloes Path/Ditton Meadows junction we would like to see a bigger realignment of the paths to smooth the existing sharp corners. As part of this change, we would also like the levels adjusted to even out the slopes around this junction.
NCN51/Ditton Lane crossing (
Full details).
At the NCN51/Ditton Lane crossing we strongly prefer the in-line route of option C, and consider options A and B, which use a dog-leg route via the existing crossing, to be too awkward. We support the option of an underpass provided that it is built to a high enough standard with a wide tunnel section (at least 3m wide) and with direct in-line approaches on both sides. We emphasise the need for a good design because we think that a badly designed underpass in this location could act as a deterrent to cycling at night due to the risk of antisocial behaviour.
If this preferred option of a high-quality underpass cannot be created for cost or engineering reasons we think the best alternative option would be to redesign Option C as an at-grade toucan crossing. This alternative option can maintain the key desire line benefit of Option C by building straight in-line approach ramps on both sides of the crossing.
Rerouting NCN51 through Wing instead of Newmarket Road Park and Ride (
Full details).
We are pleased to see that the existing rather awkward route of NCN51 through Newmarket Road Park and Ride will be replaced with an improved path through the Wing housing development. Part of this new path appears to be already under construction. However it is critically important to ensure that this route is not compromised by the ongoing development of the site. The path needs to be completed at an early stage, and be fully maintained and kept open as the development proceeds. We also think there is a case for maintaining some of the existing route through Newmarket Park and Ride both to provide cycle access to the Park and Ride site itself and to provide an alternative route in case of temporary blockages on the Wing route.
A14 underpass to Stow-cum-Quy (
Full details).
We are particularly pleased to see the proposal for a new off-road path across the fields from the tunnel under the A14 to Stow-cum-Quy village, and a new protected path through the village. This will remove the need for cyclists to cycle along the B1102 through Quy. Combined with other proposals, this will provide a complete, mostly off-road route all the way from Cambridge to Anglesey Abbey, Lode, and the start of the Lodes Way. However, we think it is important that the existing cycle route along the Quy Mill access road is also maintained as part of the Bottisham Greenway.
Missing proposal: Park End road between Bottisham and Swaffham Bulbeck (
Full details).
Finally, we have identified two sections of cycle path that we think should be added to the proposals.
The plans should extend the Bottisham Greenway to include major improvements to the shared-use path along Park End road between Bottisham and Swaffham Bulbeck. The current path is far too narrow and needs to be widened. This is an important route for children cycling between Swaffham and Bottisham Village College. This route via Bottisham is the route of NCN51 to the Swaffhams and this provides a good alternative route to Swaffham Prior that avoids riding along the B1102.
Missing proposal: Horningsea Road to Bait's Bite Lock (
Full details).
The plans for the Horningsea Greenway should include a new cycle path to connect from Horningsea Road to Bates Bite Lock. This route was identified in the earlier Greenways report and it is disappointing that it is not included in the current proposals. We think this is an important connection to provide a link via the bridge at the Lock onto the towpath and thereby connect to Milton and to Cambridge and Waterbeach.
In conclusion
In summary, we think the general approach of widening and improving the existing cycle routes is the correct approach for these Greenways. We strongly welcome the proposals to create off-road path that fill in some of the gaps. But we think there are two important omissions – two missing sections of improved cycle path - that we would like to see addressed.
Bottisham Greenway: The proposals and our comments
This section lists the proposals for the Bottisham Greenway, using images copied from the consultation leaflet. After each proposal we give our views.
Bottisham Greenway map showing locations 1-7
(image from the consultation leaflet; click for larger version)
In the map above, sections of route in purple ("treatment A") are described as "quiet roads". Sections of route in brown ("treatment B") are described as a 3 metre wide path separate from the road but shared with pedestrians.
Bottisham Greenway 1: Crossing Ditton Lane
Bottisham Greenway 1: Crossing Ditton Lane
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We have a strong preference for following the desire line as shown in Option C as this provides a more direct route and better sight lines. It is also a good option to bypass Fisons Road by following the line of the old railway line. We support the option of an underpass, provided that it is built to a high-enough standard with a wide tunnel section (at least 3m wide) and with direct in-line approach ramps so that there are no corners and good sightlines in both directions. It must also have well graded ramps (max 10%), no barriers and good lighting. We emphasise the need for a good design because we think that a badly-designed underpass in this location could act as a deterrent to cycling at night due to the risk of antisocial behaviour.
If this preferred option of a high-quality underpass cannot be created for cost or engineering reasons we think the best alternative option would be to redesign Option C as an at-grade toucan crossing. This would be much better than the dog-leg of the existing crossing. We recognise that the cycle path is below the level of the road and we would want this alternative design to maintain the desire line of Option C by building straight in-line approach ramps on both sides of the crossing.
Bottisham Greenway 2: From the Wing development to Airport Way
Bottisham Greenway 2: From the Wing development to Airport Way
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We support the proposal for an improved cycle route through the new development. However it is important that the route should be a direct, desire line path and not be subject to a meandering or indirect route in order to follow a residential grid. Furthermore the cycle path must have priority at any road crossings using raised table crossings and roads must have a maximum speed of 20mph. Equally important, the path must be delivered at an early stage in the Wing development and not left until the final stages. Once delivered, the path must be maintained and kept open as the development proceeds.
Subject to these requirements, we strongly prefer Route Option B as this will reduce the need to cycle alongside the busy main road. However this option does still require a spur path to provide a connection into the Newmarket Road park and ride site. Given that it would be desirable to have cycle access from both sides of the park and ride site, we think that the best option might to have both routes: i.e. Route Option B plus some modest improvements to the existing Route Option A.
Bottisham Greenway: Missing proposal - Airport Way to High Ditch Road.
We think the plans should include improvements to the existing path between the Park and Ride site and High Ditch Road. The path needs to be widened and improvements are needed at most of the entrances to improve sightlines and to create cycle priority where the cycle path crosses these entrances. As an example, the two entrances to Darwin Nurseries need the hedges on both corners cut back to improve visibility and new signing is needed to support cycle priority. We would also like to see an improved crossing of the A1303 near to the Airport Way roundabout.
Bottisham Greenway 3: High Ditch Road crossing
Bottisham Greenway 3: High Ditch Road crossing
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed improvements at this junction and we strongly support the proposal for cycle priority. Setting the path back is desirable, but we assume this will simply maintain the existing line of the path. We welcome the addition of a central island and the changes to the adjacent road junction to create more of a 90 degree junction as a good way to reduce the speed of turning vehicles. But we are concerned by the locations of the new trees shown in the illustration. We think care is needed with any planting to ensure that sight lines are not affected: the illustration shows new trees on the corners of the junction (on the NW and NE corners) and these trees could make it harder for drivers to see cyclists and cyclists to see turning motor vehicles.
Bottisham Greenway 4: The bridge over Quy Water
Bottisham Greenway 4: The bridge over Quy Water
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the widening of this section. This section is currently an extended bottleneck and it can be difficult for cyclists to pass. There is also a need to improve sightlines at the entrance to the underpass road – e.g. cut back the vegetation on the corner and ideally widen and re-align the path on the corner to provide a wider turning circle.
Bottisham Greenway 5: A14 Underpass
Bottisham Greenway 5: A14 Underpass
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the realignment of the southern approach to the underpass to provide better sightlines. Any retained sections of the southern access road will need resurfacing. It would also help if the slope at the northern end could be reduced by extending the ramp a short distance inside the underpass – this would also help to reduce/remove the muddy puddle that develops on the northern exit in heavy rain.
We also support the proposal for a kerb-segregated path alongside the Quy Mill Hotel access road provided that the path can be made wide enough. We assume that a single-sided 2-way path is proposed and this would require a minimum of 2.5m width so that cyclists can pass safely. If, as seems likely, this width cannot be achieved on the narrower section of the access road, we think it would be better to maintain the cycle route on the road. Some modest widening of the narrow section of the road would be desirable as part of the needed resurfacing.
Alternatively, if a path separate from the road is wanted, we suggest relocating the path behind the hedge (along the edge of the field, parallel to the hotel access road) in order to allow a path of the necessary width to be constructed. Such a path may also help if the GCP's proposed
direct cross-country shared-use path between the A14 underpass and the end of Orchard Street is not acceptable to the landowner. This path could be combined with the GCP's proposed
Stow-cum-Quy field edge link to create an alternative field edge route to replace the mid-field section of the cross-country path.
Regardless of the options for new field edge paths, we think it is important that the hotel access road remains the primary route for the Bottisham Greenway because this is most direct desire-line route. We think that any design must continue to support the existing route along (or parallel to) the access road.
Bottisham Greenway 6: Dunsley Corner: The Missing Sock
Bottisham Greenway 6: Dunsley Corner: The Missing Sock
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We support the realignment of the road junction to make the junction closer to a 90 degree radius as this should reduce the speed of turning vehicles. We welcome the proposal for cycle priority at this crossing, but we are concerned that the space constraints may compromise the layout of a set back crossing in this location. It is important that a set back design has enough space to have smooth curves for the cycleway on both sides and that the hedges on the NW corner are moved further back to allow good sightlines down Albert Road.
On a related detail, we again caution to avoid adding vegetation that interferes with these sightlines: the drawing shows two new trees on the corners both of which would block sightlines to the A1303 (this is a similar point to our comment about the
High Ditch Road crossing).
If there is insufficient space for a good quality set back crossing, we think it would be acceptable to simply tighten the radius of the junction while retaining the current more direct alignment for the crossing and accept that cycles have to give way to motor vehicles.
Bottisham Greenway: Missing proposal - Dunsley Corner to the Bell Road junction
We think the plans should include a widening of the path all the way from Dunsley Corner to the Bell Road junction. There is sufficient width in the verge and the path is currently too narrow for cyclists to easily pass or overtake. As part of this change, the driveway and field entrances should be remodelled to give clearer priority to the cycle path. Sightlines should also be improved at these entrances.
Bottisham Greenway: Missing proposal - Junction with Little Wilbraham Road
We think the plans should include a new central refuge to assist cyclists in crossing from the cycle path to Little Wilbraham Road. There is already a central island to protect the right turn lane and this could be extended to provide a refuge for cyclists to cross the A1303 road.
Bottisham Greenway 7: Bell Road
Bottisham Greenway 7: Bell Road
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the plan to set back the cycle path behind a new planted verge. The cycle path should be at least 2.5m wide. We also support the proposed use of a raised table to re-join the carriageway but we think it would be better if cyclists could join the road with a protected cycle ramp by locating it behind a one-way width restriction build-out. The width restriction can be used to provide an additional speed reduction measure and can be combined with or can replace one of the existing speed cushions.
Bottisham Greenway: Missing proposal - Bottisham to Swaffham Bulbeck
We think the Bottisham Greenway should be extended as far as Swaffham Bulbeck, with proposals to improve the cycle path along Park End road between Bottisham and Swaffham Bulbeck. The current path along this road is much too narrow and needs to be widened. This path is an important route for children cycling from Swaffham to Bottisham Village College and it also the route of NCN51.
Swaffhams Greenway: The proposals and our comments
This section lists the proposals for the Swaffhams Greenway, using images copied from the consultation leaflet. After each proposal we give our views.
Swaffhams Greenway map showing locations 1-10
(image from the consultation leaflet; click for larger version)
In the map above, sections of route in brown ("treatment B") are described as a 3 metre wide path separate from the road but shared with pedestrians. Sections of route in blue ("treatment C") are described as a 3m wide path with "features that separate cyclists and pedestrians".
General comment: We think one key aim for the Swaffham Greenway should be the creation of a safe off-road route from Cambridge to Anglesey Abbey and into Lode thereby providing a safe cycle connection to the Lodes Way. Large sections of this route are in place and we strongly support the proposals to add the missing sections as part of the Swaffham Greenway proposals.
Swaffhams Greenway 1: Stow-cum-Quy to the A14 underpass
Swaffhams Greenway 1: Stow-cum-Quy to the A14 underpass
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed new path from the A14 underpass to Orchard Street in Stow-cum-Quy. This would be a much better route for cyclists and it would also be a much improved route for walkers as a replacement for the existing muddy footpath (which goes across the fields and is frequently very muddy after ploughing).
Swaffhams Greenway 2: Stow-cum-Quy field edge link
Swaffhams Greenway 2: Stow-cum-Quy field edge link
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We think there is a limited requirement for this additional connection back to the B1102. We do not support this field edge path as a replacement for the existing cycle route along the hotel access road: we think that cyclists heading to Bottisham would prefer to continue to use the hotel access road as detailed above under
"Bottisham Greenway 5: A14 Underpass".
Swaffhams Greenway 3: Stow Road / Orchard Street / Church Road junction
Swaffhams Greenway 3: Stow Road / Orchard Street / Church Road junction (image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the creation of an off-road path for this section of the route to avoid riding on the B1102. Both of the proposed route options would be welcome if they are implemented as protected routes and we strongly support at least one of these routes in order to complete the off-road connection as noted above.
We prefer the more direct route, option B, but only if it can be implemented as a protected two-way cycle path on the western side of the road. We think that a two-way cycle path is required to avoid southbound cyclists having to cross the road twice. The two-way cycle path should be at least 2m wide at the narrowest section, widening to 2.5m where possible. We do not support option B if it requires cyclists to cross the road (e.g. we would not support on-road advisory cycle lanes for this section of the route).
Otherwise we prefer the off-road route option A. If route option A is chosen we think it would be better for the cycle path to be located in the wider section of verge after bypassing the pub and then continue along the verge up to the Main Street crossing. We think this would be better than continuing the route inside the wood because it would benefit from the street lighting and would be more accessible for the village.
Swaffhams Greenway 4: Stow Road / Main Street / Herring's Close
Swaffhams Greenway 4: Stow Road / Main Street / Herring's Close
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the addition of a protected crossing of the B1102. Given that Main Street does not carry much traffic, we think the junction remodelling is of lesser importance. But we strongly agree that the onward route to Lode and Anglesey Abbey should be along Main Street and into Quy court.
Swaffhams Greenway 5: Quy Court
Swaffhams Greenway 5: Quy Court
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposal to remodel the exit from Quy Court to improve the way the path connects to the off-road path to Lode. The current cycle path arrangement at the exit is tricky for cyclists, especially for larger cycles such as cargo bikes. The remodelling should aim to remove the dog-leg sharp corners and create a route than is suitable for all types of cycles. It would also be desirable to widen the short section of footway from the entrance to Quy Court to the start of the off-road path; or alternatively to re-route the exit along a new route behind the hedge.
Swaffhams Greenway 6: Anglesey Abbey
Swaffhams Greenway 6: Anglesey Abbey
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed improvements outside Anglesey Abbey. A wider refuge is needed and a wider shared use path on the north side of the B1102 is also needed. In addition, the short section of the path on the southern side of the crossing should also be widened as far as the start of the off-road path – this section is currently also too narrow.
Swaffhams Greenway 7: Junction of Lode Road with Swaffham Road (B1101)
Swaffhams Greenway 7: Junction of Lode Road with Swaffham Road (B1101) (image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed improvements at this junction and we strongly support the proposal for cycle priority. We think the proposed set-back arrangement is a good choice at this junction because of the better geometry with shallower approach angles and good sightlines.
As an added detail, we recommend that the design includes ramps onto Lode Road to allow cyclists to join Lode Road at the crossing. We are recommending ramps on both sides of the raised table: on the south side for cyclists turning into Lode Road to head towards Lodes Way; and on the north side to access the existing controlled crossing to head towards Bottisham.
Swaffhams Greenway 8: Junction of Longmeadow with Swaffham Road (B1101)
Swaffhams Greenway 8: Junction of Longmeadow with Swaffham Road (B1101) (image from the consultation leaflet)
We think this junction is a lower priority improvement and we think a simpler improvement could be considered here. We think it would be acceptable to simplify the proposals and locate the crossing at the mouth of the junction to avoid the cost of remodelling the whole junction.
Swaffhams Greenway 9: Swaffham Bulbeck
Swaffhams Greenway 9: Swaffham Bulbeck
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We support the proposals to provide a widened path through Swaffham Bulbeck. We think it is important that the proposals provide a continuous off-road connection all the way through the village and includes widening of the existing shared use paths at the north.
At the B1102/High Street junction (by the Black Horse Inn) it is important that the new path is designed to allow cyclists from/to Bottisham via Park End Road (NCN51) to join/leave the path. This would then allow NCN51 to be re-routed through the village centre rather than its current route over a hill further east.
Swaffhams Greenway 10: Swaffham Prior
Swaffhams Greenway 10: Swaffham Prior
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposal to close off the slip road and have cycle priority at the road junction at the entrance to the village. The existing cycle path beside the slip road is very narrow and does need to be widened. The proposal to close the road to motor traffic seems to be a good way to get the needed width as the cyclists can simply be moved onto the old road with the footway reserved for pedestrians.
Horningsea Greenway: The proposals and our comments
This section lists the proposals for the Horningsea Greenway, using images copied from the consultation leaflet. After each proposal we give our views.
Horningsea Greenway map showing locations 1-7
(image from the consultation leaflet; click for larger version)
In the map above, sections of route in purple ("treatment A") are described as "quiet roads". Sections of route in brown ("treatment B") are described as a 3 metre wide path separate from the road but shared with pedestrians. Sections of route in blue ("treatment C") are described as a 3m wide path with "features that separate cyclists and pedestrians".
Horningsea Greenway 1: Wadloes path to Ditton Meadows "Bow-Tie"
Horningsea Greenway 1: Wadloes path to Ditton Meadows "Bow-Tie"
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the need for improvements to this junction. However, we think a more extensive realignment of the paths is needed to smooth and reduce the angle of the sharp corners; to improve sight-lines; and to even out the slopes around this junction. Ideally the paths should include extra width at the junctions and on the corners to allow more space for cycles to turn and to pass. Currently many cyclists cut the corner using the unsurfaced path in front of the bench. While we recognise that the proposed sleeper steps will help to discourage cycling in front of the bench, we think that a realigned path is a much better way of encouraging cyclists to stay on the path.
Horningsea Greenway 2: Fen Ditton Church
Horningsea Greenway 2: Fen Ditton Church
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We do not support these proposed improvements because we think the proposed improvement do not address the most important issue at this junction. We think the improvements should be revised to modify the entrance to the Wadloes path. In particular, we would like to see some parking restrictions on both sides of the entrance to reduce possible obstruction and we would like to see changes to give cycle priority at the road crossing as they exit or enter the path. On a detail, we think many cyclists use the Wadloes Path to head out toward Quy via High Ditch Road and hence the improvements to this junction should support this route alignment. This also links to our preference for Route B in the next issue. Lastly while we support the proposal to enlarge the green in the middle we are concerned that the creation of a narrow cycle path in front of the church may lead to unintended conflicts and be too easily blocked by parked cars.
Horningsea Greenway 3: The byway between Green End and Horningsea Road
Horningsea Greenway 3: The byway between Green End and Horningsea Road
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We think priority should be given to Route B along the main road because we think this is the preferred route. We strongly support the proposal for improvements to the existing cycle path along Route B. The proposed new Route A (via Green End) is both less direct and the road can get busy at weekends (mainly motor traffic of customers to The Plough pub).
Horningsea Greenway 4: Junction of the byway and Horningsea Road
Horningsea Greenway 4: Junction of the byway and Horningsea Road
(image from the consultation leaflet)
As above, we support widening the path along Horningsea Road. We agree that clear signing is needed if the Byway (of Route A) is surfaced, but as noted above we do not think the Byway is an important element.
As an added detail, we would like the cycle path along Horningsea Road to include some additional ramps/access points to enable cyclists to join the path from the road at multiple points at the edge of the village. This because we think some cyclists will opt to cycle on the road through the village and only join the cycle path as they exit the village.
Horningsea Greenway 5: Horningsea to the A14
Horningsea Greenway 5: Horningsea to the A14
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support improvements to this path. A verge would be welcome but we think widening of the path is more important.
Horningsea Greenway: Missing proposal - cycle connection to Bait's Bite lock
We think a key missing element is a cycle connection to Bait's Bite lock. There is an existing footpath from the road that could be upgraded to a surfaced shared use path, but other routes are also possible. This would provide an important missing connection to enable cyclists to access the footbridge at the lock and thus connect to the Haling Way towpath.
Horningsea Greenway 6: Horningsea - A14 Junction 34
Horningsea Greenway 6: Horningsea - A14 Junction 34
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed improvements to this junction.
Horningsea Greenway 7: Horningsea - Village gateway
Horningsea Greenway 7: Horningsea - Village gateway
(image from the consultation leaflet)
We strongly support the proposed improvements to the village gateway. We think the proposed width restriction is an good method of reducing vehicle speeds. On a detail, we think it would be good if the cycle path is able to join the road immediately after the width restriction so that the build-out provides protection for the cyclists as they join the road.
All the maps and images above are taken from the consultation leaflet (pdf).
We plan to send the above analysis to the GCP as our response, so if you agree or disagree with the comments we make below, or think we have missed anything, please do let us know by sending an email to our campaigning team at campaigning@ctccambridge.org.uk. We'd welcome your views.