Trumping Ton Meadows HIA Report - FINAL

Trumpington Meadows
Sustainable Urban
Extension
Health Impact
Assessment Report
Project Ref: 15694
April, 2007
Client:
Trumpington Meadows Land
Company (TMLC)
peter brett associates

Caversham Bridge House
Waterman Place
Reading
Berkshire RG1 8DN
Tel: +44 (0)118 950 0761

Fax: +44 (0)118 959 7498
E-mail: reading@pba.co.uk
Peter Brett Associates Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension
Health Impact Assessment
PBA Document Control Sheet

Project Title : Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension
Project Ref : 15694
Report Title : Health Impact Assessment Report
Date: : 25 April 2007
Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by Dr Salim Vohra Principal
Checked and Dr Claire Holman Divisional Director

Authorised for
issue by
For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates
Peter Brett Associates disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the
scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of
the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with ACE Conditions of Engagement and taking account
of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is
confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties
to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.
© Peter Brett Associates 2004
i
Doc Ref: J:\15694-000 Trumpington Meadows HIA\HIA report\Trumpington Meadows HIA Report - FINAL.doc Created on 24 April 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3
2 Health Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 5
3 Methodology .............................................................................................10
4 Background Context .................................................................................13
5 Policy Context...........................................................................................16
6 Baseline and Community Profile...............................................................20
7 Social Determinants of Health ..................................................................36
8 Community views......................................................................................41
9 Health Impacts of Current Trends with No New Development ..................45
10 Health Impacts of the New Development ..................................................49
11 Conclusion................................................................................................58
12 Key References .........................................................................................59
Appendix A............................................................................................................60
ii
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Peter Brett Associates has been commissioned by the Trumpington Meadows Land
Company (TMLC) to undertake a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) of the
development proposed at Trumpington Meadows, in Trumpington, Cambridge. TMLC
is a partnership between Grosvenor and the Universities Superannuation Scheme
(USS).
1.1.2 The scope of the rapid HIA was agreed with Iain Green, HIA Officer for South
Cambridgeshire District Council1.
1.1.3 Outline planning applications were submitted to South Cambridgeshire District

Council (SCDC) and Cambridge City Council (CCC) in July 2006 (application
numbers S/1310/06/O and 06/0706/OUT respectively) for approximately 1,200
dwellings, land for a primary school and other community facilities, to new accesses,
and an approximately 60ha riverside community park. Subsequently the Local
Planning Authorities have requested the submission of a Health Impact Assessment
to support these outline planning applications.
1.1.4 The aim of this rapid HIA was to a) assess the potential positive and negative health
impacts on the residents of the existing communities around the proposed
development and the residents that are likely to live and work in the new
development; and b) identify measures to remove or mitigate the negative impacts
and enhance the positive ones..
1.1.5 The HIA focussed on seven key themes:
1.1.6 How the development fits with the health, social care and wellbeing (-related) policies
and strategies of the local authority, PCT and region.
1.1.7 The potential positive and negative health and wellbeing effects of the proposed
development on existing and new communities.
1.1.8 How health inequalities and social exclusion are affected and the potential for this
proposed development to narrow or widen them.
3
1.1.9 Potential impacts on vulnerable groups in the community e.g. older people, children,
families, people with disabilities, people on low incomes/unemployed, etc.
1.1.10 Potential impacts on health and social care services.
1.1.11 Potential indirect, cumulative and synergistic health impacts.
1.1.12 Develop mitigation measures (alongside and complementary to ones that have been
described in the other assessment work carried out to date).
1
Email correspondence, 20th April 2007
4
2 Health Impact Assessment
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The international Gothenburg consensus definition of health impact assessment (HIA)
is: “A combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or
project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the
distribution of those effects within the population.”2
2.1.2 HIA is the key systematic approach to identifying the differential health and wellbeing
impacts, both positive and negative, of plans and projects.
2.1.3 HIA uses a range of structured and evaluated sources of qualitative and quantitative
evidence that includes public and other stakeholders' perceptions and experiences as
well as public health, epidemiological, toxicological and medical knowledge. Our
approach is particularly concerned with the distribution of effects within a population,
as different groups are likely to be affected in different ways, and therefore we look at
how health and social inequalities might be reduced or widened by a proposed plan
or project.
2.1.4 The aim is to inform and influence clients and decision-makers by providing a
rigorous analysis of the potential impacts as well as recommending options, where
appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and
reducing health inequalities.
2.1.5 HIA uses both a biomedical and social definition of health, recognising that though
illness and disease (mortality and morbidity) are useful ways of understanding and
measuring health they need to be fitted within a broader understanding of health and
wellbeing to be properly useful (See Fig 2.1).
2
WHO European Centre for Health Policy; Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach;
Gothenburg consensus paper; WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999.
5
3
Fig 2.1: The determinants of health and wellbeing
2.1.6 HIA uses the following World Health Organization psycho-social definition of health in
our work: Health is “the extent to which an individual or group is able to realise
aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is
therefore a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a positive
concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical
capacities.”4
2.1.7 This definition builds on and is complementary to the longer established World Health
Organization definition that “Health is a state of complete physical, social and mental
wellbeing and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity”5.
2.2 Our approach to HIA
2.2.1 HIA take a systems approach to HIA. The model used to understand the health and
wellbeing impacts encompasses the plan or project, the determinants of health and
wellbeing, pathways of action and the impacts themselves. Fig 2.2. illustrates the
approach to the HIA of the Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension.
3
Peter Brett Associates; Adapted from Dahlgren G and Whitehead, Policies and strategies to promote social
equity in health; Institute of Future Studies; Stockholm; 1991.
4
World Health Organization; Health Promotion: A Discussion Document on the Concepts and Principles; WHO
Regional Office for Europe; Copenhagen; 1984.
5
World Health Organization; Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the
International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948
6
Fig. 2.2 A systems view of the potential health and wellbeing impacts of the proposed Trumpington Meadows development.
Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension, Trumpington, Cambridge

Development Framework & Outline Proposals
Natural Social Lifestyles and Transport Employment Social capital, Availability

environment and daily routines and and education cohesion and access to
neighbourhood essential and services and
environment infrastructure inequalities amenities
General
population Children and People with Socially
Older people Employees
and young chronic dis-advantaged
potentially people conditions/ people
vulnerable disabilities
sub-groups
Health and wellbeing impacts (direct and indirect)
7
2.3 Our general HIA methodology
2.3.1 The general methodology is based on established good practice guidance on HIA
developed by the Department of Health and the Health Development Agency (now
the subsumed into the National Institute of Clinical Excellence) and the Devolved
Regions.
Screening
2.3.2 This stage assesses the value of carrying out a HIA by examining the importance of a
plan or project and the significance of any potential health impacts.
Scoping
2.3.3 This stage sets the ‘terms of reference’ for the HIA i.e. the aspects to be considered,
geographical scope, population groups that might need particular focus, what will be
excluded from the HIA, how the HIA process will be managed and so on.
Baseline assessment and community profile
2.3.4 This stage uses routine national and local datasets e.g. national census, local
surveys, area profiles, and other demographic, social, economic, environmental and
health information to develop a community profile with a strong focus on health and
wellbeing issues, and identification of vulnerable groups, as a baseline from which to
assess the potential positive and negative impacts and any health inequalities.
Stakeholder consultation and involvement
2.3.5 This stage uses workshops, questionnaires, interviews, surveys and other methods of
consultation and involvement to engage key stakeholders, in particular local people,
in the identification and appraisal of the potential health and wellbeing impacts, in the
development of mitigation measures; and in developing options for monitoring and
evaluating the identified impacts.
8
Evidence and analysis
2.3.6 This stage involves the collation of key evidence and the systematic analysis of the
potential impacts, their significance, the groups likely to be most affected and the
strength of the evidence for these impacts through the use of matrices and models.
Mitigation measures
2.3.7 This stage involves the identification of a range of measures to minimise the potential
negative health effects and maximise the positive health benefits identified in the
previous stages.
Health impact statement
2.3.8 This stage produces the final health statement, non-technical summary and
presentations to key stakeholders.
2.3.9 It involves summarising the key conclusions, options and recommendations emerging
from the assessment including identifying monitoring and evaluation indicators and
processes to ensure that health and wellbeing are maintained during the whole
lifecycle of a project or plan.
Follow up
2.3.10 This stage involves the active follow up of the project or plan to monitor and/or ensure
that mitigation measures have been put in place after a project or plan is approved.
2.3.11 It can also involve: a) presentation of the findings to key professional stakeholders; b)
the development and implementation of a health impact communication plan to
ensure that local communities fully understand the findings of the HIA and how and
why it was carried out; and c) the evaluation of the effectiveness and value of the HIA
process itself.
9
3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The following sections outline the methodology applied to this rapid health impact
assessment (HIA). They concern the following: a definition of the study area and
study population; sources of information consulted; consultation and consultee
feedback; assessment criteria and assessment framework.
3.1.2 This rapid HIA used existing data and information from earlier technical studies and
consultations as well as routine data sources.
3.1.3 The methodology and methods used were based on existing good practice guidance
in England and the Devolved Regions.
3.1.4 The assessment was largely qualitative except where data was available to enable
quantification or where quantification of health impacts has already been undertaken
in previous assessments e.g. technical studies for the environmental impact
assessment (EIA).
3.2 Study area
3.2.1 The geographical scope of this HIA was the wards in which the development site is
located: Trumpington and Haslingfield and the Eversdens as well as Barton
(Grantchester is located within it), Harston and Hauxton, and The Shelfords and
Stapleford which are the wards surrounding the development site. These were
considered in relation to South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire as a whole.
3.3 Study population
3.3.1 The population scope of this HIA was the resident population in the geographical
areas described above and the new residents that are likely to move into the
development. The key vulnerable groups considered were children and young
people, women, older people, people with disabilities and/or chronic conditions,
people on low incomes/unemployed, minority groups and employees. A detailed list
of population sub-groups considered is provided in the Appendix.
10
3.4 Sources consulted
3.4.1 The key planning documents that were reviewed were the design and access
statement, the sustainability statement, the consultation statement and the
environmental statement (including the associated detailed technical studies).
3.4.2 A range of information sources were considered including Office of National

Statistics; Department of Health community health profiles; Audit Commission area
profiles; Cambridgeshire Observatory data; Eastern Health Observatory data;
information from Cambridgeshire PCT, Cambridge County Council, Cambridge City
Council and South Cambridgeshire Council; as well as previous relevant HIA reports,
databases and review of health impact evidence.
3.4.3 In relation to assessing the potential health and social care implications of the
proposed development we used what local guidance that was available as well as
good practice guidance from elsewhere e.g. the London NHS Healthy Urban
Development Unit.
3.4.4 No specific HIA-related wider stakeholder or community consultation was undertaken

given the previous consultations that have already taken place, the nature of the
development and the current outline level of design detail as further consultation
would not have provided any new information for this assessment.
3.5 Analysis and assessment criteria
3.5.1 The assessment was based on a document analysis and desk-top health impact
analysis using a matrix table to analyse the potential positive and negative health and
wellbeing impacts. The categories used in the matrix table were: physical and mental
health; employment and enterprise; housing and accommodation; transport and
connectivity; learning and education; crime and safety; health and social care; shops
and retail amenities; social capital, cohesion and inclusion; culture and leisure;
lifestyle and daily routines; land and spatial (including energy and waste).
3.5.2 The identified impacts were then classified using the levels defined in Table 3.1
below.
3.5.3 We compared the potential impacts to a ‘Do Nothing’ option for the construction, short
term operation and long term operational phases of the proposed development.
11
Table 3.1: Definition of the levels of potential impact
Significance Level Criteria
Severe ---- Only adverse effects are assigned this level of importance as
they represent key factors in the decision-making process, and
(negative only)
may threaten the viability of the project. These effects are
generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites and features
of international, national or regional importance. A change at a
regional or district scale site or feature may also enter this
category. Typically, mitigation measures are unlikely to remove
severe adverse effects.
Major +++/--- These effects are likely to be important considerations at a local
or district scale. If adverse, potential concerns to the project
(positive or negative)
may become key factors in the decision-making process.
Mitigation measures and detailed design work are unlikely to
remove all of the adverse effects upon the affected communities
or interests.
Moderate ++/-- These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are
unlikely to be key decision-making issues. Nevertheless, the
cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the
overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource.
They represent issues where effects will be experienced but
mitigation measures and detailed design work may ameliorate
or enhance some of the consequences upon affected
communities or interests. Some residual effects will still arise.
Minor/Mild ++/-- These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to
be of importance in the decision-making process. Nevertheless
they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the
project and the consideration of mitigation and/or compensation
measures.
Neutral/No Effect ~ No effect or effects which are beneath the level of perception or
within normal bounds of variation.
3.5.4 For each potential health impact ten key issues were considered
• Which population groups are affected and in what way?
• Is the effect reversible or irreversible?
• Does the effect occur over the short, medium or long term?
• Is the effect permanent or temporary?
• Does it increase or decrease with time?
• Is it of local, regional, national or international importance?
• Is it beneficial, neutral or adverse?
• Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened?
• Are mitigating measures available and is it reasonable to require these?
• Are the effects direct, indirect and or cumulative?
12
4 Background Context
4.1 Proposed Development
4.1.1 Reflecting discussions with the Local Planning Authorities since July 2006, the
proposed development includes the following uses, to be developed over the period
up to 2015:
• approximately 1,200 dwellings on 30 ha of gross development, including 30%

affordable housing
• two new access points onto Hauxton Road and an emergency access off
Grantchester Road
• 1.75ha primary school site incorporating additional community facilities
• 250sqm retail unit and other flexible ground floor commercial space in the local
centre
• approximately 60 ha of riverside community park
• formal and informal open space, and children’s play space including a multi-use
games area (MUGA), and one tennis court within the school site for community
use and on combined local and neighbourhood equipped area of play (NEAP and
LEAP) plus two further LEAPS.
• 0.5 ha of allotments
• a comprehensive network of footpaths and cycleways
• a gateway feature into Cambridge city and the site.
The Supplementary Design and Access Statement (July 2007) provides the detail of
the proposals to which this report refers.
13
Doc Ref: J:\15694-000 Trumpington Meadows HIA\HIA report\Trumpington Meadows HIA Report Created on 24 April 2007
- FINAL.doc
4.2 Rationale for the proposed development6
4.2.1 The principle of sustainable urban extensions on the edge of Cambridge city and of
revisions to the green belt to accommodate this growth is well established and was
incorporated within the 2000 Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia. The
Cambridgeshire Sub-Regional Study (2001) was commissioned to identify where the
green belt could be rolled back to accommodate the substantial growth for Cambridge
and its sub-region. Land south of Cambridge was identified, which subsequently
became known as the Cambridge Southern Fringe.
4.2.2 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) subsequently

incorporated policies for the delivery of the Southern Fringe. Policy P9/2C requires a
strategic master plan for the whole of the Southern Fringe to be prepared, including
land to the east and south of Trumpington. This requirement has subsequently been
satisfied through the Southern Fringe Area Development Framework prepared by the
city council to expand upon Policy 9/5 of the city local plan, and approved in January
2006.
4.2.3 Trumpington Meadows is identified for sustainable residential development as part of

the wider Cambridge Southern Fringe in both the emerging City Local Plan and South
Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework. Both provide details of the Councils’
vision for the site, and guidance on the form and nature of development anticipated,
including the desired land use mix, accessibility, and landscape and open space
principles.
4.2.4 The historicity of the Southern Fringe urban expansion largely accounts for the
degree of consensus surrounding the local plan allocations that seek to implement
this.
4.2.5 The sub-region of Cambridgeshire has been identified as one of four major growth
areas in England (ODPM, 2003).
4.3 Planning, design and assessment work carried out to date
4.3.1 A range of detailed design and assessment work has already been undertaken since
2002 with a series of community consultations in 2004 and 2005.
6
Information sourced from the development framework documents and the environmental impact
assessment for the proposed development.
14
- FINAL.doc
4.3.2 The key design and assessment work carried out to date have been documented in:
• Design and access statement

• Environmental statement
• Supporting Statement
• Sustainability Assessment
• Consultation Assessment
• Transport Assessment
4.3.3 Additional information that has been submitted in April 2007 as requested by the
Local Planning Authorities includes:
• Supplementary Design and Access Statement (Terence O’Rourke Ltd)

• Sustainability Report, July 2007 (Peter, Brett Associates)
• Energy Statement (Peter Brett Associates)
• Waste Audit (Peter Brett Associates)
• Environmental Statement Addendum
• Supporting Statement Addendum
• Flood Risk Assessment Addendum
• Plant Noise Assessment Robert Sayle Building (Capita Symonds)
15
- FINAL.doc
5 Policy Context
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This chapter summarises the health, social care and wellbeing (-related) policy
context in relation to the proposed Trumpington Meadows development, at the
national, regional, local authority and PCT levels.
5.1.2 The following policy documents below seek to promote ‘healthy communities’ through
the following means; social cohesion and inclusion; contributions to people's well-
being; protection of human health; health and safety; provision and access to health
services; sustainable development and the control of the health impacts of
developments.
5.2 National Policy
5.2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)
5.2.2 Planning and Climate Change: Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (March
2007)
5.2.3 Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications (August 2001)
5.2.4 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August

2005)
5.2.5 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (July
2005)
5.2.6 Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (September 2004)
5.2.7 Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (September 2004)
5.2.8 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (March 2001)
5.2.9 Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (July
2002)
5.2.10 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (November 2004)
16
- FINAL.doc
5.2.11 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (September 1994)
5.2.12 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (December 2006)
5.2.13 Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms
(November 1992)
5.2.14 UK Air Quality Standards and Objectives (Defra) and Air Quality Strategy (2000) and
Addendum to the Air Quality Strategy (2003)
5.2.15 UK 2006 Climate Change Programme
5.2.16 From Decent Homes to Sustainable Communities: A discussion draft (CLG, June
2006)
5.2.17 Code for Sustainable Homes (CLG, December 2006)
5.2.18 Rural Strategy 2004 (Defra)
5.2.19 DfT sustainable travel policies (see DfT website)
5.2.20 DfT Climate Change and Transport (2006)
5.2.21 Defra Circular 1/2006 Contaminated Land (2006)
5.3 Regional policy
5.3.1 The Cambridgeshire Sub-Regional Strategy: (2001)
5.3.2 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)
5.3.3 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Development Framework (January 2006)
5.3.4 Corporate Annual Report 2005-2006, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire
Primary Care Trusts (2006)
5.3.5 Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire PCTs Local Delivery Plan 2005 To 2008
First Year Action Plans (May 2005)
5.3.6 Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016, Government Office for the East
of England RPG6 (November 2000)
5.3.7 Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (LTP2)
17
- FINAL.doc
5.3.8 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Waste Management Strategy for dealing
with Municipal Solid Waste 2002-2022
5.4 Local policy
5.4.1 Cambridge City Council (CCC) Arts Plan For Cambridge 2002 – 2007
5.4.2 CCC Children & Young People’s Strategy 2004-2008
5.4.3 CCC Community Safety Strategy 2005-2008
5.4.4 CCC Crime and Disorder Strategy
5.4.5 CCC Economic Development Strategy 2004-2007: Supporting Success. Tackling

Disadvantage
5.4.6 CCC Health Improvement Strategy: Improving the Health of the People of Cambridge
(November 2001)
5.4.7 CCC Homelessness Strategy (June 2003)
5.4.8 CCC Housing Strategy 2004-2007
5.4.9 CCC 2006 Cambridge Local Plan
5.4.10 CCC Medium Term Objectives 2006 (Final Version)
5.4.11 CCC Open Space and Recreation Strategy (November 2006)
5.4.12 CCC Parks, Play and Open Spaces Strategy
5.4.13 Single Homeless And Rough Sleepers Strategy 2006-09
5.4.14 CCC Sports Services Strategy (2002-2003)
5.4.15 CCC Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan (2002)
5.4.16 South Cambridgeshire District Council Development Control Policies Development

Plan Document (DCPDCP) - DP/1 Sustainable Development
5.4.17 South Cambridgeshire District Council Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan
(CSFAAP) - CSF/21 - An Exemplar in Sustainability
18
- FINAL.doc
5.5 Health and social care policy
5.5.1 Cambridgeshire Health: Director of Public Health Annual Report 2005-06
5.5.2 Our Health, Our Care, Our Say (2006)
5.5.3 Choosing Health (2004)
5.5.4 Choosing Health: Physical Activity Action Plan (2005)
5.5.5 Choosing Health? Choosing a Better Diet,(2004)
5.5.6 Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity (2005)
5.5.7 Tackling Health Inequalities (2003)
5.5.8 Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener (now CLG lead, October 2002)
5.5.9 National Community Safety Plan 2006–09 (November 2005)
5.5.10 Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit Health and Transport (June 2006)
5.5.11 Tackling Obesity in England (February 2001)
5.5.12 Health Concordat (2005)
5.5.13 DfT Walking and Cycling Action Plan Walking in towns and cities: Govt response to
Select Committee Report, 2001; DfT sustainable travel policies (see DfT website)
19
- FINAL.doc
6 Baseline and Community Profile
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This chapter describes the key baseline conditions as they relate to the direct and
indirect determinants of health for the Cambridgeshire wards of Barton, Harston and
Hauxton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and The Shelfords and Stapleford
alongside the Cambridge City ward of Trumpington, within the context of Cambridge
City and South Cambridgeshire (See Fig 6.1). The proposed development is situated
within the wards of Trumpington and Haslingfield and the Eversdens. The two major
settlements nearest to the proposed development site are Trumpington Village
(Trumpington ward) and Grantchester to the North (Barton ward). The information in
this chapter has been gathered from the Office of National Statistics; Department of
Health community health profiles; Audit Commission area profiles; Cambridgeshire
Observatory data; Eastern Health Observatory data; the Sports England Active
Places database information from Cambridgeshire PCT, Cambridge County Council,
Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire Council.
6.1.2 This is not intended to be an exhaustive profile of the current social, economic and
environmental conditions as they relate to health and wellbeing but a rapid
assessment of readily accessible information relating to the Trumpington Sustainable
Urban Extension and the adjacent wards.
6.1.3 This chapter complements the Socio-economic chapter of the Environmental Impact
Assessment of the Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension and
therefore should be read in conjunction with it.
6.2 Cambridge City
6.2.1 Cambridge City has one of the lowest deprivation measures in the country. The four
most deprived wards are concentrated at the northern end of the city compared to
Trumpington which is situated in the south.
6.2.2 It has high levels of decent local authority housing,
20
- FINAL.doc
6.2.3 There is high life expectancy and a lower than average number of deaths from
smoking, heart disease, stroke, and cancers. And a higher than average proportion of
the population are estimated to be eating healthily.
6.2.4 However, the difference in the life expectancy between the healthiest and least
healthy parts of the city is 7 years. This is high, with many less healthy places having
lower levels of inequality.
6.2.5 The level of recorded violent crime is significantly higher than the national average
(although the total number of recorded crimes has fallen over the past 3 years).
6.2.6 In relation to children and young people there are high levels of GCSE achievement
and low levels of teenage pregnancy
6.2.7 The road trauma rate for people using roads in the area is high, although, importantly,
this may differ from the road trauma rates of local residents.
6.2.8 There are significantly higher numbers of hospital admissions related to alcohol, even
after taking into account the numbers of young adults.
6.2.9 The Community Strategy for Cambridge has identified some key issues for the local
population: traffic congestion and the need to promote alternatives to car travel; crime
and the fear of crime; enough affordable housing; and the many needs of older
people.
6.3 South Cambridgeshire
6.3.1 South Cambridgeshire also has one of the lowest deprivation measures in the
country. All its wards are in the 25% of least deprived wards.
6.3.2 Life expectancy for both men and women is well above average, even when
compared with similar areas.
6.3.3 However, the difference in the life expectancy between the healthiest and least
healthy parts of the district is 6 years.
6.3.4 The proportion of the population who smoke is low as is the proportion who are
estimated to binge drink.
6.3.5 In relation to children and young people GCSE achievement is high and teenage
pregnancy is low.
21
- FINAL.doc
6.3.6 The number of violent offences is relatively low.
6.3.7 The population has grown by over 20% during the past 20 years and is likely to grow
by a similar amount over the next 20 years, with important consequences for
infrastructure and services.
6.3.8 Local reports have recently emphasised a focus on: children and young people; the
importance of promoting healthier lifestyles through increased physical activity,
healthier eating and smoking reduction; addressing inequalities; and improving and
developing services to enable older people to continue living independently at home.
Fig 6.1 Trumpington, Barton and Haslingfield and the Eversdens in relation to Cambridge City
[Maps source: Ordnance Survey7]
6.4 Population characteristics
7
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey data by permission of Ordnance Survey. © Crown copyright (2007). All
rights reserved. License No. (100017583)
22
- FINAL.doc
6.4.1 The resident population of Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The
Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston and Hauxton in relation to Cambridge City and
South Cambridgeshire are approximately 6,600; 2,400; 2,700; 6,900; 2,400; 109,000
and 130,000 respectively. The average age in Trumpington is 39 years; in Barton 44
years; in Haslingfield and The Eversdens 41 years; in The Shelfords and Stapleford
43 years; and in Harston and Hauxton 41 years compared to 36 years in Cambridge
City and 39 years in South Cambridgeshire. Trumpington like the rest of Cambridge
has a younger population and that population is predominately made up students
going to the local university. In contrast South Cambridgeshire has a somewhat older
population.
6.4.2 Figure 6.2 shows that Trumpington, an urban area of Cambridge City, has a younger
population profile than Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other rural
wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire. It has almost two and half times the
population of 20-29 year olds compared to the other wards of interest.
Fig. 6.2 Proportion of residents by age Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The
Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire compared to
Cambridgeshire as a whole [Source: Office of National Statistics]
50%
45%
Barton
40%
Harston and Hauxton
35%
Haslingfield and The
30% Eversdens
The Shelfords and
25% Stapleford
Trumpington
20%
Cambridge
15% South Cambridgeshire
10% Cambridgeshire
5%
0%
0 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 59 60 to 74 75 and Over
6.4.3 Projections of population growth produced by Cambridgeshire County Council

Research Group estimate that the population will rise to 178,000 for South
Cambridgeshire and 147,000 for Cambridge City by 2021 (A 36% and 33% rise in
population compared to a Cambridgeshire average of 23% over the twenty year
period between 2001-2021). The forecasts predict increases in the number of
23
- FINAL.doc
residents in all age groups for both Cambridge City and South Cambridge however
the biggest increases in Cambridge City will be of people under 44 years of age while
the biggest increases in those South Cambridgeshire will be of people over 65 years
of age.
6.5 Ethnic profile
6.5.1 Trumpington, like Cambridge City as a whole, has a more diverse ethnic profile than
Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire. In Trumpington 77% are White British compared to over 90% in
Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire. Asian (3.4%) and Chinese (2.3%) are the major ethnic groups in
Trumpington.
6.5.2 Travellers are one of the largest minority ethnic groups in Cambridgeshire. At
present, it is difficult to identify accurate numbers of Travellers, although regular
counts of caravans are published by Communities and Local Government (CLG).
Figures, from January 2006, show there are 591 caravans across South
Cambridgeshire.
6.5.3 Cambridgeshire has many migrant and seasonal workers. Very little is known about
these groups but it is likely that some are living and working in poor conditions and
are not accessing appropriate health care. A health needs assessment for migrant
workers has been carried out in North Fenland. This indicates that significant
numbers of local migrant workers come from Portugal, Lithuania and Poland.
6.6 Religion
6.6.1 In line with the ethnic profile, just under 60% of Trumpington residents are Christian
compared to over 70% to residents of Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and
the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire. There are very small proportion
of Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish residents in all the wards of interest.
6.7 Family structure
Marital status and household composition (See Fig. 6.3) provide a good indication of
the family structure, the stability of families and the likely personal and social care
networks that
24
- FINAL.doc
Fig. 6.3 Household composition in Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire compared to Cambridgeshire as a whole [Source: Office of National Statistics]
30.0%
25.0% Barton
Harston and Hauxton
20.0%
Haslingfield and The Eversdens
The Shelf ords and Stapleford
15.0%
Trumpington
Cambridge
10.0%
South Cambridgeshire
5.0% Cambridgeshir e
0.0%
One Pensioner One person: Other All pensioners Married couple Married couple Married couple Married couple Cohabiting couple Cohabiting couple Cohabiting couple Cohabiting couple Lone parent Lone parent Lone parent
households: No households: With households: With households: All family households: family households: family households: family households: households: With households: With households: All
children one dependent tw o or more children non- No children With one With tw o or more All children non- one dependent tw o or more children non-
child dependent children dependent dependent child dependent children dependent child dependent children dependent
25
- FINAL.doc
6.7.1 residents of an area have. Trumpington has more single residents, over 50%,
compared with Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of
interest in South Cambridgeshire who have more married residents, over 40%. All the
wards have low rates of divorce, separation (less than 8% of the residents).
6.7.2 The proportion of all pensioner households is greater in Barton, Haslingfield and The
Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire than in
Trumpington.
6.7.3 The proportion of married couples greater in Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens
and the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire than in Trumpington.
6.7.4 The proportion of cohabiting couples with children is similar in al the wards of interest.
6.7.5 The proportion of lone parent households with two or more children is greater in
Trumpington than Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of
interest in South Cambridgeshire.
6.8 Health status
6.8.1 Just under 90% of residents in all the wards of interest described their health as
either good or fairly good similar to the Cambridgeshire average (See Fig. 6.4).
6.8.2 Residents of the wards of interest have low levels of limiting long term illness (13-
16%).
Fig. 6.4 Perceived health status and long term limiting illness in Trumpington, Barton,
Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire compared to Cambridgeshire as a whole [Source: Office of National
Statistics]
100%
90% Barton
80%
Harston and Hauxton
70%
60%
The Shelfords and Stapleford
50%
Trumpington
40%
Cambridge
30%
20%
10% Cambridgeshire
0%
Good Fairly Good Not Good W ith a W ithout a
Health Health Health Limiting Limiting
Long Term Long Term
Illness Illness
26
- FINAL.doc
6.8.3 Overall, residents of all the wards of interest and have low levels of long term limiting
illness when compared to the regional and national average.
6.9 Deprivation and social cohesion
6.9.1 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a measure of multiple
deprivation at the small area level. These are experienced by individuals living in an
area. People may be counted in one or more of the domains, depending on the
number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall IMD is
conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specific dimensions of
deprivation. The IMD 2004 contains seven domains of deprivation: income
deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education,
skills and training deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation, living
environment deprivation and crime deprivation.
6.9.2 Though the wards of interest are not deprived in relation to England as a whole the
IMD scores shows that relative deprivation, in all the wards of interest, occur for
Barriers to Housing and Services and the Living Environment (See Fig. 6.5).
Fig. 6.5 IMD Scores for Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the
other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire [the higher the score the greater the
deprivation Source: Office of National Statistics]
700
Barton
600
500
Harston and
Hauxton
400
Haslingfield and
300 The Eversdens
200
The Shelfords and
Stapleford
100
Trumpington
0
IMD Score Income Score Employment Score Health Deprivation Education Skills Barriers to Housing Crime Score Living Environment
and Disability and Training Score and Services Score Score
Score
-100
6.9.3 91% of Cambridge residents think that for their local area, over the past three years,
community activities have got better or stayed the same compared to 88% of South
Cambridgeshire residents who think so.
6.9.4 36% of Cambridge residents turned out for the last European elections compared to
45% of South Cambridgeshire residents.
27
- FINAL.doc
6.9.5 22% of Cambridge residents think that people being attacked because of their skin
colour, ethnic origin or religion is a very big or fairly big problem in their local area
compared to 14% of South Cambridgeshire residents who think so
6.10 Housing
6.10.1 Cambridge’s housing stock is in generally good condition. However there is a limited
supply of land for new housing and its cost is high in relation to what many people
can afford to pay, which has helped to fuel the increase in commuting from cheaper
locations in the villages and nearby market towns.
6.10.2 The majority of residents of Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens,
The Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston and Hauxton live in owner occupied
accommodation. In Trumpington, 25% of residents own their home outright, similar to
Cambridgeshire as a whole, compared to over 30% for Barton, Haslingfield and The
Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston and Hauxton.
6.10.3 Both Trumpington and Barton have the highest proportion of residents living in social
housing at 19% and 17% compared to 15% for Cambridgeshire as a whole.
Trumpington has the highest proportion of residents who live in privately rented
accommodation at 19% compared to less than 7% for the other wards of interest.
6.10.4 Average prices for all types are higher than regional and national values. Currently
the average house price in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are £280,000
and £250,000, with detached properties fetching £450,000 and £330,000; semi-
detached properties fetching £285,000 and £220,000; terraced housing fetching
£290,000 and £190,000; and flats fetching £210,000 and £150,000.
6.10.5 There are five proposed housing schemes in the Southern Fringe area: Trumpington
Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension for 1,200 new homes; the Clay
Farm/Showground scheme for up to 2,300 new homes; the Glebe Farm scheme for
approximately 230 new homes; the Bell School scheme for approximately 310 home
and the Bayer Site, Hauxton scheme for approximately 250 new homes.
6.11 Employment and unemployment
6.11.1 Trumpington and Barton have similar proportions of full-time employed residents,
38%, compared to the other wards of interest Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The
Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston and Hauxton which have over 42%.
28
- FINAL.doc
Trumpington also has a smaller proportion of part-time employed residents, 9%,
compared to Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford, and
Harston and Hauxton whilst Barton has the highest at 15%.
6.11.2 The unemployment rate in all the wards of interest are similar, less than 2.5%.
6.11.3 Trumpington has a higher proportion of students, 20% compared with less than 4.5%
for Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire. In contrast, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other
wards have a higher proportion of retired residents, over 15%, compared with
Trumpington with less than 10%.
6.11.4 A greater proportion of the residents of Trumpington are employed in professional

occupations, 32%, than Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards
of interest with between 20-24%. In contrast Trumpington has less residents
employed in managerial and senior official occupations, 15%, than Barton,
Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest which have between
16-22%. In all wards a lower proportion of residents are employed as process, plant
and machine operatives; sales and customer service occupations and personal
service occupations.
6.11.5 The majority of residents in all the wards of interest work in four main industries: real
estate, renting & business activities; education; health & social work; and wholesale &
retail trade & repairs. There are significantly higher proportions of Trumpington and
Barton residents who are employed in education, 23%, than the other wards of
interest. In contrast, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford,
and Harston and Hauxton have a higher proportion of residents employed in
manufacturing than Trumpington or Barton.
6.11.6 Overall, the economy of both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are buoyant
and will continue to be so.
6.12 Education
6.12.1 All the wards of interest have high proportions of residents who have degree level
and above qualification with Trumpington and Barton having the highest at 49% and
42% respectively (See Fig. 6.6).
6.12.2 Less than 20% of residents in the wards of interest have no qualifications.
29
- FINAL.doc
Fig. 6.6 Proportion of residents with qualifications in Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield

and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire compared
to Cambridgeshire as a whole [Source: Office of National Statistics]
60%
50% Barton
Harston and Hauxton
40% Haslingfield and The Eversdens
30%
Trumpington
20% Cambridge
10% Cambridgeshire
0%
No Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 Other
qualifications qualifications qualifications qualifications qualifications qualifications:
Level unknown
6.12.3 Trumpington has a high proportion of students studying at the University of

Cambridge compared to the other wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire.
6.13 Transport and connectivity
6.13.1 Given the proximity of a park and ride scheme (also the southern terminus of the new
Guided Busway) access by bus in and around the development site, into Cambridge
and to the surrounding villages is good.
6.13.2 Over 32% of households in Trumpington compared to less than 15% of households in
Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston
and Hauxton do not own a car or van (See Fig. 6.7).
6.13.3 Also in Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford, and
Harston and Hauxton 42% of households have 2 or more cars or vans compared to
Trumpington which has 23%.
public transport has got better or stayed the same compared to 56% of South
the level of congestion has got better or stayed the same compared to 27% of South
30
- FINAL.doc
Fig. 6.7 Proportion of residents with motor vehicles in Trumpington, Barton,
Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest in South
Cambridgeshire compared to Cambridgeshire as a whole [Source: Office of National
Statistics]
50%
45%
40% Barton
35% Harston and Hauxton

30%
25%
Trumpington
20%
Cambridge
15% South Cambridgeshire
10% Cambridgeshire
5%
0%
No car or van 1 car or van 2 cars or vans 3 or more cars
or vans
6.13.6 The average distance travelled to work in Trumpington and Barton are 12km and 13
km compared with Haslingfield and The Eversdens and the other wards of interest
with 14-16km compared to average distances in Cambridge City, South Cambridge
and Cambridgeshire of 11km, 16km and 16km respectively.
6.14 Crime and safety
6.14.1 Trumpington has low levels of all crimes and disorder and is below the Cambridge
City levels for all crimes except Commercial Burglary. Market ward in the Centre of
Cambridge City has by far the highest levels of crime and disorder. However,
offenders living in Trumpington, alongside King’s Hedges, West Chesterton, Market,
Newnham, tend to have committed more offences than those in Cambridge as a
whole (See Table 6.1).
6.14.2 Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, and Harston and Hauxton all have low levels
of crime and disorder and are below the South Cambridgeshire average. However,
Barton, does have slight to moderate above average levels of abandoned vehicles
and poaching. Few offenders live in these wards.
6.14.3 Of the wards of interest only The Shelfords and Stapleford, in South Cambridgeshire,
has high levels of crime and disorder with above average levels of domestic violence
related incidents, abandoned vehicles, noise complaints, criminal damage, theft of
and from vehicles and dwelling, commercial and shed/garage burglaries.
31
- FINAL.doc
6.14.4 97% of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents feel very or fairly safe
outside during the day.
6.14.5 65% of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents feel very or fairly safe
outside after dark.
6.14.6 53% of Cambridge residents think vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage is
a very big problem in their local area compared to 48% of South Cambridgeshire
residents who think so.
6.14.7 59% of Cambridge residents think that people using and dealing drugs is a very big or
fairly big problem in their local area compared to 48% of South Cambridgeshire
residents who think so.
6.14.8 51% of Cambridge residents think that people being rowdy or drunk in public places
is a very big or fairly big problem in their local area compared to 34% of South
Table 6.1: Comparison of the total numbers of crimes between Cambridge City and
South Cambridgeshire as a proportion of all crimes in Cambridgeshire as a whole
[Source: Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Crime Audit]
6.15 Health and social care
6.15.1 Primary care for all the wards of interest is commissioned by Cambridgeshire Primary
Care Trust (PCT) which is a merger of Cambridge City, East Cambridgeshire and
Fenland, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire PCTs as of October 2006.
6.15.2 Fig 6.8 shows the location of health centres, dental practices and pharmacies in
Cambridge City and the wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire. Though the
development site is within the catchment area there is only one GP practice in
Trumpington. On average there are 1,800-1,900 patients to every GP and as
experienced at a national level there are considerable pressures on primary and the
32
- FINAL.doc
majority of patient lists are full with little spare capacity for sizeable numbers of new
patients.
Fig. 6.8 Health Centres, dental practices and pharmacies in Cambridge City and the wards of
interest in South Cambridgeshire [Source: Cambridgeshire PCT]
6.15.3 There is only one dental practice, which is not accepting new NHS patients and one
pharmacy in Trumpington.
6.15.4 Addenbrooke’s Hospital is the main city general hospital with and accident and
emergency service serving the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are.
33
- FINAL.doc
6.15.5 The main causes of death in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are
circulatory diseases (coronary heart disease and stroke) followed by cancer (lung and
bronchus, colorectal, prostate and upper digestive tract) accounting for 37% and 27%
of all deaths. Deaths due to road traffic accidents are also higher than the national
average.
6.15.6 Cambridgeshire County Council provides the major social care services to
Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford,
and Harston and Hauxton. Given the overall good health of the population social care
needs are in line with those nationally.
6.16 Shops and retail amenities
6.16.1 The majority of shops and retail facilities are concentrated in the centre of Cambridge
City though Trumpington does have a range of shopping and retail amenities.
6.17 Culture and leisure
6.17.1 Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The Shelfords and Stapleford,
and Harston and Hauxton have few sports and leisure facilities in their localities. The
Sports England Active Places database shows there are currently 10 sports facility
within 1 mile of the development site though the majority are linked to educational
facilities.
6.17.2 There is thriving arts and culture scene within Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire as
a whole but little within Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The Eversdens, The
Shelfords and Stapleford, and Harston and Hauxton.
6.17.3 24% of Cambridge residents are within 20 minutes travel time (urban – walking; rural
– driving) of a range of three different sports facility types, at least one of which has
achieved a quality mark compared to 17% of South Cambridgeshire residents.
activities for teenagers has got better or stayed the same compared to 66% of South
cultural facilities (e.g. cinemas, museums) have got better or stayed the same
compared to 93% of South Cambridgeshire residents who think so.
34
- FINAL.doc
6.17.6 85% of Cambridge residents also think that for their local area, over the past three
years, facilities for young children have got better or stayed the same compared to
87% of South Cambridgeshire residents who think so.
sports and leisure facilities have got better or stayed the same compared to 90% of
South Cambridgeshire residents who think so.
6.17.8 95% of Cambridge residents also think that for their local area, over the past three
years, parks and open spaces have got better or stayed the same compared to 94%
of South Cambridgeshire residents who think so.
6.18 Land and spatial
6.18.1 Both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire residents have three key priorities in
relation improving the local area. These are: transport and congestion, affordable
housing and public transport.
6.18.2 Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire have low levels of derelict land (0.3% and
0%). Though 10% of the land and highways in Cambridge and 30% in South
Cambridgeshire are judged to have unacceptable levels of litter and detritus.
6.18.3 1% of the length of local rivers in Cambridge is judged to be of good biological quality
though 98% of them are judged to be of good chemical quality. 71% of the length of
local rivers in South Cambridgeshire is judged to be of good biological quality and
58% of them are judged to be of good chemical quality.
6.18.4 Only 16% of household waste is recycled and 20% of household waste composted in
Cambridge compared to 18% of waste being recycled and 31% of waste being
composted in South Cambridgeshire. 57% of household waste from both Cambridge
City and South Cambridgeshire is landfilled and there is no energy recovered from it.
35
- FINAL.doc
7 Social Determinants of Health
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 This is a introduction to some of the key social determinants of health and the
development pathways by which they can positively and negatively affect health. The
aim is to give a flavour of how the health and wellbeing of existing and new residents
can be affected by a range of direct and indirect effects that are generated by land
developments.
7.2 Employment and economy
7.2.1 Unemployment generally leads to poverty and a reduction in personal and social
esteem.
7.2.2 Poverty excludes people from: being able to afford quality and variety of foods,
engaging in opportunities for leisure and physical recreation, enhancing their
education and learning, having warm and comfortable homes. It also increases their
difficulties in travelling and therefore accessing other services and amenities and
levels of stress.
7.2.3 All of these lead to poorer physical growth and development, reduced immunity to
disease and reduced physical and mental health wellbeing.
7.2.4 It affects all age groups but greatest effects on those already on low incomes, those
with disabilities and children.
7.2.5 The pathway by which employment can be affected by developments is by reducing

employment opportunities, affecting local people’s social and welfare entitlements,
affecting the viability of the organisations they work for, reducing their opportunities
for education and training and reducing their ability to travel and access.
7.2.6 Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that existing employment,

education, training, amenities and public transport are not reduced.
36
- FINAL.doc
7.3 Housing and accommodation
7.3.1 Poor housing that is damp, cold with poorly maintained water, electric and gas
appliances has an effect on physical growth and development, reduced immunity to
infections and mental health and wellbeing.
7.3.2 Housing affects all age groups but greatest effects are on older people, those with
disabilities and children.
7.3.3 The pathway by which housing can be affected by developments is where

construction work causes vibration and subsidence in existing homes; poor
maintenance of social housing; homes where large families live in overcrowded
conditions.
7.3.4 Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure housing meets ‘decent homes’
standards especially social housing, building more cheap and affordable homes and
improving the access to housing maintenance services.
7.4 Education and learning
7.4.1 Access to education improves the life chances and opportunities of people in terms of
access to employment, uptake of health promotion and disease prevention
information and being able to articulate need and hence access services more
effectively.
7.4.2 It affects all age groups but greatest effects are on children and young people.
7.4.3 The pathway by which education can be affected by developments is through direct
changes to an education or training programme e.g. closure of a school and move to
a new one; disruption to access to an education or training facility or disruption of
their ability to deliver e.g. construction.
7.4.4 Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that existing education and
training opportunities are not reduced or affected.
7.5 Transport and connectivity
7.5.1 Transport can lead to traffic which leads to poorer outdoor air quality which in turn
leads to respiratory problems.
37
- FINAL.doc
7.5.2 It can also lead to improved access to services and amenities e.g. health and social
care, parks, leisure centres, etc. which leads to increased health and wellbeing.
Increased opportunities for business expansion leading to more employment
opportunities.
7.5.3 It affects all age groups but greatest effects on older people, children, those with
disabilities and carers of young children.
7.5.4 The pathway by which transport can be affected by developments is through the
building of roads, greater flows of traffic because of new or denser housing
developments, or greater flows of heavy traffic because of new or expanded
business/industrial facilities.
7.5.5 Mitigation involves developing measures to reduce the outdoor air pollution caused
by motor vehicles and industrial factories, ensuring that residential and outdoor play
areas are not built near roads with heavy motor traffic.
7.6 Crime and safety
7.6.1 Fear of crime causes stress which reduces immunity to disease and mental
wellbeing. Actual experience of crime causes stress and physical injury which
reduces physical and mental health and wellbeing.
7.6.2 It affects all age groups but fear of crime is greatest among women.
7.6.3 The pathway by which crime and safety can be affected by developments is through
change that they make to neighbourhoods that bring in new people and new routines
in a community making crime easier to commit and less easy to notice.
7.6.4 Mitigation involves developing measures where buildings have natural surveillance
from neighbours and using ‘designing out crime’ building design principles.
7.7 Health and social care
7.7.1 Reduced access to health services leads to ill-health becoming worse, less amenable
to treatment and more likely to lead to a permanent physical or mental impairment.
Reduced access to social care services leads to stable chronic conditions becoming
worse and the loss of independent living skills which in turn lead to greater physical
and mental impairment.
38
- FINAL.doc
7.7.2 It affects all age groups but greatest effects are on children and older people.
7.7.3 The pathway by which health and social care can be affected by developments is
through disruption to or reduction of public transport, locating facilities in remote
locations and not making people aware of the services available to them, closure of
local facilities or disruption during a move to a new facility.
7.7.4 Mitigation involves appropriate planning and communication about disruption to

access and ensuring alternatives are developed.
7.8 Social capital and cohesion
7.8.1 Disruption and reduction in the quality of the social relationships and social networks
that local people and communities have can lead to feeling isolated and excluded
which in turn can lead to depression and poor mental wellbeing. It can also make
individual more vulnerable to crime and to reduce their access to health and social
care services.
7.8.2 It affects all age groups.
7.8.3 The pathway by which social capital and cohesion can be affected by developments
is where it raises strong concerns and is not wanted by local people or an initiative
that benefits some people at the expense of others.
7.8.4 Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that there is acceptance of an

initiative by local people and affected groups and ensuring that everyone benefits
and those that don’t are compensated.
7.9 Environment
7.9.1 Dirty and poor quality built environments as well as little or poor quality green space
have a negative effect on mental wellbeing.
7.9.2 It affects all age groups.
7.9.3 The pathway by which environment can be affected by developments is where there
is a reduction in street cleaning amenities and park officers, an increase in litter
through the inadequate provision of bins, the lack of maintenance of streets and
street furniture and the lack of maintenance of public and private buildings.
39
- FINAL.doc
7.9.4 Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that there is an appropriate plan to
manage and maintain greenspace and other public spaces.
40
- FINAL.doc
8 Community views
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 This rapid HIA did not carry out any specific community consultation given that there
has already been extensive consultation on the development over the last five years.
8.1.2 There has been a significant amount of pre-application consultation relating to the
release of land to accommodate substantial housing development in this location.
The nature and results of this consultation together with amendments which were
made to the scheme as a result of consultation responses received is contained
within the Consultation Statement, July 2006, and summarised below.
8.2 Community concerns
8.2.1 The key issues and concerns expressed by local people around the proposed
development site fell broadly into twelve categories: green space and open space;
congestion (construction and operational); connectivity and access (including
sustainable transport); design quality and innovation; site containment; existing
features; environment and ecology (including flood risk and agriculture);
sustainability; administration and planning policy; amenities and services; and health.
The specific concerns raised are detailed below:
8.2.2 Green Space and Open Space
8.2.3 Remaining Green Belt land should be protected from development in the long-term;
The proposals for establishing the community park and for improving the River Cam
corridor should be implemented in advance of the development in order that they can
become established; The public should be encouraged to make use of the balancing
ponds in order to draw people away from the river corridor; Development south of the
Park and Ride would erode the green swathe between the existing developed area
and the M11.
8.2.4 Congestion (Construction and Operational)
8.2.5 The development will lead to additional congestion along the A3109; The junction
with the Addenbrooke’s access road has the potential to cause congestion and lead
to delays towards the junction with the M11; Construction traffic should be properly
41
- FINAL.doc
managed in order to avoid congestion and conflict; In order to avoid congestion,
access to the proposed school should not be taken from the Grantchester to
Trumpington Road; Waitrose could be re-located southwards alongside Robert Sayle
to help alleviate the current congestion at the junction with Shelford Road.
8.2.6 Connectivity and Access (Including Sustainable Transport)
8.2.7 Sustainable modes of transport should be supported; The development should assist
with developing stronger links to Hauxton and Harston; A link across the M11 should
be included; There should be no vehicular access from the development onto the
road between Trumpington and Grantchester; Links between Trumpington and
Grantchester Meadows should be encouraged; The development should seek to
adopt a home-zone type layout in order to encourage cycling and walking; The
development should seek to develop stronger physical links with the church.
8.2.8 Design Quality and Innovation
8.2.9 The development should seek to provide the highest standards of design; In order to
avoid monotony, the development should encourage variety and include a number of
different character areas; The development should show a commitment towards
contemporary forms of architecture; The layout of the proposed development should
be flexible and adaptable to change; The development should seek to deliver an
attractive and imaginative gateway to southern Cambridge; The approach to lighting
will need to be considered with care; Contamination could be an issue given the
previous activity of the site; The development should seek to explore and make
provision for the latest best-practice with respect to encouraging more sustainable
forms of design and construction; Buildings should be designed to be energy efficient.
8.2.10 Site Containment
8.2.11 The boundaries to the site should be carefully designed; The development should not
impinge upon the visual separation between Grantchester and Trumpington ; The
built development should be kept off the ridge line so that the scale of the
development is visibly reduced when viewed from across the river.
8.2.12 Existing Features
8.2.13 The setting of the grade I Anstey Hall and Trumpington Church should be protected;
The re-use of Shepherd’s Cottage, along with associated infrastructure, will have a
42
- FINAL.doc
significant impact on the character and openness of the site; Development should
not affect the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).
8.2.14 Environment and Ecology (including Flood Risk and Agriculture)
8.2.15 The development will lead to greater visitor pressure along the River Cam corridor
and visitor access to the banks will need to be managed by careful routing of
footpaths; Existing habitats should not be lost; Retained farmland should be
maintained in an environmentally friendly manner; Pockets of wet woodland should
be provided; The meadow land should be appropriately managed; Tree planting
along Hauxton Road should be encouraged.
8.2.16 Sustainability
8.2.17 Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUD) should be incorporated into the scheme;
Water management/efficiency measures should be included as part of the
development.
8.2.18 Administration and Planning Policy
8.2.19 Potential problems may arise given the fact that the development is split between the
two local authority areas.
8.2.20 Amenities and Services
8.2.21 The services and facilities offered as part of the development should seek to
complement and enhance existing provision within Trumpington village.
8.2.22 Health
8.2.23 The impact of the development upon local services, such as health and education,
should be investigated and appropriate facilities provided if a need is identified.
8.3 Revisions to the masterplan
8.3.1 As a result of this process revisions to the masterplan were made as set out in the
Consultation Statement that accompanied the outline planning applications in July
2006. The July 2006 Design and Access Statement presented the masterplan and
proposals as it had evolved through the pre-application consultation.
43
- FINAL.doc
8.3.2 Following a period of statutory consultation on the outline planning applications
further amendments to the proposals and master plan have been discussed with the
Local Planning Authorities and are set out in the Supplementary Design and Access
Statement, April 2007.
44
- FINAL.doc
9 Health Impacts of Current Trends with No

New Development
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 This chapter details the key health and wellbeing trends if no development were to
take place on the Trumpington Meadows development site.
9.1.2 The site would continue to remain as commercial premises and farmland. There is
likely to be a 30% or more increase in the population of Cambridge City and South
Cambridgeshire. It is likely that much of this population growth will be centred in and
around urban centres such as Cambridge.
9.1.3 Overall, the health and wellbeing of the local people of Trumpington, Barton, Harston
and Hauxton, Haslingfield and the Eversdens, and The Shelfords and Stapleford is
likely to remain good.
9.2 Impact analysis
Infectious diseases
9.2.1 There will be no change from current trends. The rates of infectious disease is low
and immunisation rates in children are high.
Non-infectious/chronic diseases
9.2.2 There will be no change from current trends. The main causes of death will continue
to be circulatory diseases (coronary heart disease and stroke) and cancer (lung and
bronchus, colorectal, prostate and upper digestive tract).
Accidents, poisonings and physical injury
9.2.3 There will be no change from current trends. Accidents, poisonings and physical
injury rates are low though deaths due to road traffic accidents are higher than the
national average.
45
- FINAL.doc
Mental health
9.2.4 There will be no change from current trends. Rates of mental health illness are
currently low.
Population profile
9.2.5 There will be no change from current trends. The population is forecast to continue
growing with Trumpington continuing to have a younger population that the other
more rural wards of interest in South Cambridgeshire.
Employment and economy
9.2.6 There will be no change from current trends. Employment opportunities in both
Cambridge City and South Cambridge will continue to be good. Residents of both will
continue to be employed in real estate, renting and business activities; education;
health & social work; and wholesale & retail trade & repairs.
Housing and accommodation
9.2.7 There will be no change from current trends. All the wards of interest have some level
of relative deprivation in terms of barriers to housing and the living environment.
House prices are likely to continue to rise in line with district trends. There is an influx
of economic migrants into the area, from eastern Europe in particular, and this will
create additional pressures on housing. Land for traveller communities, and the
consequences of the lack of permitted sites, is likely to continue to be a significant
issues.
Transport and connectivity
9.2.8 There will be no change from current trends. Current transport and connectivity is
seen by local residents as good or improving and public transport with the park and
ride (also the southern terminus of the new Guided Busway) will continue to be good.
Car use is likely to remain high.
Education and learning
9.2.9 There will be no change from current trends. Levels of qualifications and skills are
high in all the wards of interest.
46
- FINAL.doc
Crime and safety
9.2.10 There will be no change from current trends. Crime and disorder will continue to be at
low levels except for The Shelfords and Stapleford.
Health and social care services
9.2.11 There will be no change from current trends. Existing primary care services are
stretched and this situation is unlikely to improve in the short to medium term.
Shops and other retail amenities
9.2.12 There will be no change from current trends. There are a good range of shops and
retail amenities in Trumpington and Cambridge City Centre is easily accessible.
Social capital and cohesion
9.2.13 There will be no change from current trends. There is some diversity and variety of
local voluntary sector clubs, groups and organisations that highlights local people’s
active engagement in their neighbourhoods.
Culture and leisure
9.2.14 There will be no change from current trends. Culture and leisure facilities will
continue to be limited in the wards of interest particularly the wards in South
Cambridgeshire.
Lifestyle and daily routines
9.2.15 Lifestyles and daily routines are likely to continue as they currently are.
Land and spatial
9.2.16 There are a range of strategic developments proposed for the Southern Fringe to
deal with housing pressures and population growth that are likely to change the urban
and rural landscape in and around Trumpington, Barton, Harston and Hauxton,
Haslingfield and the Eversdens and The Shelfords and Stapleford.
9.3 Mitigation measures
9.3.1 There are existing plans and programmes in Cambridge and South Cambridge to
tackle health inequalities and social deprivation.
47
- FINAL.doc
9.3.2 Mitigation measures for Trumpington ward and the other wards of interest would
include a focus on barriers to housing and services and the living environment.
48
- FINAL.doc
10 Health Impacts of the New Development
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 In total there are likely to be over 10,000 new homes new homes in the Southern
Fringe the next 15 years. These will be made up of 1200 homes on the Trumpington
Meadows site. This is a sizeable amount of housing development that will significantly
change the nature of the Southern Fringe area.
10.1.2 All change involves uncertainty and uncertainty generates worries and fears about
the future in existing residents. This is the context within which the health impacts of
the proposed development need to be understood. For a detailed assessment of the
health impacts compared to doing nothing see Appendix A – the health impact matrix.
10.1.3 People moving house, like those in employment, are likely to be healthier and less
likely to have chronic illnesses or serious disabilities than the general population as a
whole.
10.1.4 To maintain the health and wellbeing of the new and existing residents requires the
construction and operation of a new development needs to take into account their
potential health and wellbeing impacts.
10.2 Impact analysis – construction phase
10.2.1 There are three main potential positive health and wellbeing impacts associated with
the construction phase of the proposed development.
10.2.1.1 The job opportunities for local people on the development site and the
stimulation of the wider economy that the construction is likely to be bring.
This is likely to be a minor to moderate positive health impact.
10.2.1.2 The on-the-job construction training opportunities and construction

experience that the development will provide. This is likely to be minor
to moderate positive health impact.
10.2.1.3 The increased passing trade for local shops and other retail amenities as
well as the potential for increased rents from providing accommodation to
the construction workers who come from outside Cambridge and its
49
- FINAL.doc
immediate surroundings. This is likely to be a minor to moderate
positive health impact for construction workers.
10.2.2 There are seven main potential negative health and wellbeing impacts associated
with the construction phase of the proposed development. The majority of these are
minor, particularly as they are temporary.
10.2.2.1 The nuisance effects associated with the construction activities on the site
and the associated construction traffic (chiefly noise and dust). The
direction and phasing of the construction will reduce the impacts on
Trumpington after the first phase of houses are built and the buffer zone of
green space is likely to ensure that impacts on the surrounding villages
are minimal. But there is still some likelihood for varying degrees of
psychosocial stress related to construction activities and manifested as
worry, concern, frustration, anger and upset among existing residents in
Trumpington and/or the surrounding villages. This is likely to be a minor
to moderate negative health impact.
10.2.2.2 The movement of the construction lorries is likely to generate more

congestion of key routes and increase the risks of road traffic accidents.
This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health impact that is
most likely to affect those who are living close to or using the roads along
which the construction lorries will use.
10.2.2.3 The potential influx of construction workers is likely to create a pressure on

existing housing and accommodation and, though beneficial to private
landlords, is likely to drive up the costs of renting and owning a home in
the area. This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health
impact.
10.2.2.4 The potential influx of construction-related new people into the area may
make the area feel more unsafe. This is a likely to be a minor negative
health impact.
10.2.2.5 Injured or unwell construction workers are likely to use local health
services. This is likely to be a minor negative health impact.
50
- FINAL.doc
10.2.2.6 The construction phase is likely to interfere with the lifestyles and daily
routines of people living close to the site or passing around it. This is
likely to be a minor negative health impact.
10.2.2.7 The construction phase is likely to make the development site visually
unattractive compared to what it currently is. However, given the current
commercial use of the site this is likely to be a minor negative health
impact.
10.3 Impact analysis – operation phase
10.3.1 There are six main potential positive health impacts of the development during its
operation phase on the new residents of the development and on existing residents
around the development site:
10.3.1.1 The new good quality housing on the development that will include
affordable and key worker housing on the site. This is likely to be a
major positive health impact.
10.3.1.2 The new accessible greenspace with formal play spaces and facilities.
There is one access point to the greenspace from Grantchester through
an existing rights of way. Additionally given that a motorway cuts across
the proposed greenspace it is less likely that new and existing residents to
the north of the motorway will fully access the greenspace south of the
motorway. It is envisaged that the main access point will be an existing
footbridge across the motorway. There is an existing underpass but there
are flood risk concerns that make its use problematic. This is likely to be
a major positive impact.
10.3.1.3 The transport and connectivity of the development with new cycleways
and footpaths as well as strong public transport links through the existing
park and ride facility (also the southern terminus of the new Guided
Busway) that will connect the new development to Trumpington and the
surrounding villages. There is also an aspiration to limit speeds to 20mph
and develop shared spaces through the creation of lanes and mews. This
is likely to be a major positive health impact.
10.3.1.4 The development of one new primary school and an aspiration to ensure
that the schools becomes a community resource through the provision of a
51
- FINAL.doc
range of educational, recreational and sports facilities for the new and
existing residents of the area. This is likely to be a major positive
impact.
10.3.2 There are three main potential negative health impacts of the development during its
operation phase on the new residents of the development and on existing residents
around the development site:
10.3.2.1 The potential lack of the proposed Southern Fringe health centre and
provision for primary care services in the first phase of the development is
likely to create additional pressures on local primary care services
particularly those in and around Trumpington. This impact could potentially
continue into the second phase of the development. This is likely to be a
major negative health impact.
10.3.2.2 The increase in motor vehicle traffic in the area. This is likely to lead to
more greater congestion and an increased risk of road traffic accidents.
This is likely to be a minor health impact.
10.4 Cumulative impacts
10.4.1 Given the wider set of developments proposed around the Southern Fringe the
mitigation measures will be important in ensuring that the negative health and
wellbeing impacts of the whole set of developments are minimised and their positive
impacts maximised.
10.5 Mitigation measures
10.5.1 This set of mitigation measures builds on the measures developed in the
accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment and should be read and
implemented in conjunction with them.
10.5.2 Health and safety in and around the construction site:
10.5.2.1 Develop and agree on a site specific Code of Construction Practice

(CoCP) to deal with potential nuisance issues resulting from the
construction site and its operation. This should include a clear line of
communication, for example a dedicated helpline phone number, to
52
- FINAL.doc
enable local people to report issues and clear responsibilities for how to
respond to these issues.
10.5.2.2 Ensure adherence to the new Construction (Design & Management)

Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007) regulation have come into force and aims
to integrate health and safety into project management. The Health and
Safety Executive has produced an accompanying Approved Code of
Practice document ‘Managing Health and safety in Construction’ which
sets out the implications of the new legislation for developers, contractors,
designers and workers.
10.5.2.3 Secure the perimeter of the construction site and consider regular patrols
after dark either by local police/community wardens or a private security
company.
10.5.2.4 Ensure that best practice is used in dealing with construction related
noise, dust and materials.
10.5.2.5 Ensure appropriate remediation of any chemical, biotechnology and

agriculture-related contamination of the land on the site.
10.5.3 Recruitment of construction workers:
10.5.3.1 Ensure recruitment for the construction jobs always start locally through
job centres and recruitment agencies in Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire. This will also reduce the potential pressures on local
housing.
10.5.3.2 Develop a plan for dealing with the accommodation and healthcare needs
of construction workers moving into the area from elsewhere. This will
need to be developed once construction recruitment has starts and there
is a clearer idea of the number of workers likely to move into the area.
Housing construction workers in existing permanent dwellings is always
preferable to temporary ‘portacabin’ type accommodation even for a short
while.
10.5.4 Construction traffic:
10.5.4.1 Develop a construction traffic route and timing plan, in consultation with
local people, so that construction traffic avoids peak times on the key
53
- FINAL.doc
routes in and around Trumpington and the surrounding villages. Ensure
that local people are aware of the plan so that they can be proactive in
avoiding those routes and those time when possible. The routes taken by
construction are likely to change over the course of the 8 years, so the
plan will need to be reviewed and updated regularly. It will be important to
ensure that local people are made aware of all updates.
10.5.5 Housing provision:
10.5.5.1 Ensure an adequate number and types of affordable and keyworker

housing is built into the development. This will be crucial, both in meeting
local housing needs as well as in recruiting and retaining keyworkers for
the new developments.
10.5.6 HomeZones approach to neighbourhood design:
10.5.6.1 There is an aspiration reduce speeds to 20 mph and to use elements of

HomeZone design in developing the on-street parking and sharing spaces
through the creation of lanes and mews. A commitment to consider
HomeZone ideas and design principles in the design of the lanes and
mews would help to ensure a ‘walkable’ neighbourhood and community
are created which allows residents, especially children, to use street
spaces and reduce the potential for road traffic accidents.
10.5.7 Schools provision:
10.5.7.1 Children will be attending the local primary school on site and a School
Travel Plan will encourage walking and cycling.
10.5.8 Health care provision:
10.5.8.1 A clear plan for providing health care to the residents of the first and
second phases of the development needs to be developed. A health
centre is not proposed for the development as a health centre will be built
as part of the wider set of Southern Fringe developments. It is unclear
when exactly this health centre will be built. Residents moving into the first
phase of the development are therefore likely to register with existing GPs
and health centres in the area for many years. Given that 600 residential
units will be created in the first phase and 600 the second, it is likely that
54
- FINAL.doc
there will be a resident population of 1440 people in the first phase by
2011/2012 and a further 1440 by 2015 (taking the national household
average size of 2.4 people per household). This will create significant
pressures on existing primary care services in area and will mean at least
one extra GP and associated primary care team will need to be recruited
for the development as a whole and ideally two.
10.5.8.2 It is important to consider the early setting up of the proposed health

centre for the Southern Fringe to ensure that primary care provision is
planned ahead of the influx of new residents to reduce the impacts on both
new and existing residents. The proposed location of the has been
agreed, however the timing of when it will come into operation has not. It is
likely that the first phase residents will require primary care services for
between 2-4 years before the Southern Fringe Health Centre is built.
There are two potential solutions;
10.5.8.3 to expand services in existing primary care centres in and around

Trumpington and the surrounding villages and to allocate a proportion of
these new residents to each with the plan of transferring them to the new
Southern Fringe health centre when it becomes operational. The
advantage of this approach would be that it uses existing primary care
services and buildings to serve the new residents. The disadvantages are
that i) the new residents may have to travel some distance to get to them,
ii) if additional personnel were not recruited then this would place
significant pressure on these existing services and potentially reduce the
quality of care received by existing residents, and iii) there would need to
be space in these existing health centres to house these additional staff.
10.5.8.4 or to provide a temporary modular build health centre at the proposed site
of the Southern Fringe development site, if feasible, as soon as feasible
with staff transferring to the new permanent Southern Fringe health centre
when it becomes operational. The advantage of this would be the local
provision of primary care services that is cost-effective (current temporary
modular build health units last can be used for 10 years or more and
provide a good level of quality accommodation that is flexible enough to
meet changing demands), recruitment of health professionals could start
early and the team could focus on the health care needs of the new
residents and the construction workers.
55
- FINAL.doc
10.5.8.5 The Healthy Urban Development Unit has developed a financial model to
calculate the potential capital and revenue costs of new housing
developments in terms of primary care services. While this model has
been developed to deal with the London context, which overall is less
healthy and more deprived than Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire) it
can provide a starting estimate that can be used to consider the potential
health and social care service provision costs of the new development.
10.5.8.6 A clear plan for the provision and location of dental services for the
development.
10.5.9 Culture, leisure and greenspace provision:
10.5.9.1 Developing better connections between the new greenspace and the
surrounding villages will help to ensure that the new greenspace becomes
an asset not just to the new residents of the development and
Trumpington but to the wider area of South Cambridgeshire. However,
there are practical limitations to this due to ownership of the land and
distance from the greenspace. The best used greenspace is that which is
within 10-20 min walking distance.
10.5.9.2 One key issue will be having clearly defined and agreed on responsibilities
for the management and maintenance of public green and open spaces as
well as streets and neighbourhoods. Developing a clear plan on the
management and maintenance of public and green spaces within the
development and considering the potential long term costs of ensuring
high quality, clean and safe public and green spaces.
10.6 Residual effects
10.6.1 The above mitigation measures if properly applied and reviewed will ensure that the
majority of the negative health impacts of the development are eliminated or much
reduced. The above mitigation measures will ensure that health and social
inequalities are not widened in the area and have some potential to reduce the
relative health and social inequalities in the area.
56
- FINAL.doc
10.7 Conclusion
The proposed new development has overall positive health impacts both for the new
residents of the development as well as for existing residents. However, there will be
some temporary minor negative impacts on local people living close to the
development during the construction phase and the lack of a clear plan for how the
health care needs of the new residents are met is the major negative health impacts
in the short term to medium term.
57
- FINAL.doc
11 Conclusion
11.1.1 Given the population growth in the area and the pressure and demand on housing
some level of strategic, sustainable and socially balanced housing development in the
Southern Fringe and near settlements like Trumpington is crucial to ensure the health
and wellbeing both of existing and new residents.
11.1.2 The proposal for a Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension provides a
good opportunity to do this.
11.1.3 The outline design of the development, its core components and the phasing of the
construction are an excellent foundation for ensuring that the potential negative
health and wellbeing impacts are minimised and the potential positive health and
wellbeing impacts maximised.
11.1.4 Implementing the proposals as set out in the Supplementary Design and Access
Statement and the mitigation measures outlined in this report alongside those
described in the accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment will help to ensure
that the proposed development goes a long way to promoting health and wellbeing,
reduce the influence of factors likely to reduce health and wellbeing and narrow the
relative health and social inequalities that are present around the development site.
58
- FINAL.doc
12 Key References
Evidence base for health impacts
Health impacts of the built environment: a review, National Institute of Public Health in
Ireland, Ireland, 2006
Healthy sustainable communities: what works?, NHS Milton Keynes Health and Social Care
Group, England, UK 2004
Housing and public health: a review of reviews of interventions for improving health -
National Institute of Clinical Excellence evidence briefing, England, UK, 2005
Impact of housing conditions on health - Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, England,

UK, 2005
Aspects of Housing and their Impact on Health - Northumbria University, England, UK, 2003
Past HIAs in the region
St Neots Housing Development HIA, Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust, 2005
Alconbury Airfield Development HIA, Cambridgeshire Health Authority, 2000
Other Documents
Creating Healthier Communities a resource pack for local partnerships, ODPM and DH, 2005
Health and Urban Planning Toolkit, Healthy Urban Development Unit, NHS London, 2006
HomeZone Design Guidelines, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers, 2002
Housing Audit: assessing the design quality of new housing in the East Midlands, West
Midlands and the South West, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2007
59
- FINAL.doc
Appendix A
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
60
- FINAL.doc
Health impact matrix for the construction and operation phases of the development compared to no development taking place
Legend
+ positive health impact +++ major ---
Construction Phase (8 years made up of two phases: Years 0-3, Years 4-8) - negative health impact ++ moderate - -
~ no identified health impact + minor -
Only construction and associated activity impacts are assessed in this table.
Construction Phase No development impact Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension – impact
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
61
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Overall No change from current trends. -- The construction will be phased over 8 years. There is -/--
The health of the population will therefore likely to be some disruption, potentially
continue to be good. continuously, from construction activity and construction-
related traffic (materials, equipment, and workers).
Population growth will mean there is
likely to be a continuing pressure on There is currently no resident population on the and the
and a shortage of housing of all types, current businesses are on short leases. The majority of
particularly affordable housing. the businesses are likely to re-locate and this may
potentially mean that some employees may either lose
The employment opportunities for their jobs or need to look for new jobs if the re-location is
local people will remain the same and too far for them to commute comfortably.
economic development will continue in
real estate, renting and business The residents in the villages surrounding the population
activities; education; and health and site as well as the residents of Trumpington are likely to
social care. be most affected by this disruption.
Deprivation and social capital are The majority of these negative construction impacts will
likely to continue at similar levels. be minor, relatively short term and temporary negative
health impacts on existing resident’s quality of life and
sense of wellbeing.
Given the direction and phasing of the construction, the
impacts on Trumpington will be much reduced after the
first phase of houses are built and the buffer zone of
green space is likely to ensure that the impacts are
minimal on the surrounding villages. But there is still
some likelihood for varying degrees of psychosocial
stress related to construction activities – noise, dust, dirt,
traffic, other disruption – and manifested as worry,
concern, frustration, anger and upset among existing
residents.
Overall the construction is unlikely to widen health
inequalities.
62
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Infectious diseases No change from current trends. The construction activity is unlikely to cause or spread ~
The rates for infectious disease is low infectious diseases to existing or new residents.
and immunisation rates are high. Workers coming into contact with sewage pipes and
contaminated water can be affected by micro-organisms
such as leptospirosis.
Construction workers moving into the area, particular
those who are single, can lead to a rise in sexually
transmitted diseases.
Non-infectious/chronic No change from current trends. The construction activity will not cause non- ~
diseases The main causes of death will infectious/chronic diseases to existing or new residents.
continue to be circulatory diseases There is likely to be some dust generated by the
(coronary heart disease and stroke) construction but the levels of these are unlikely to lead to
and cancer (lung and bronchus, respiratory or cardiovascular problems.
colorectal, prostate and upper
digestive tract).
63
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Accidents, poisonings and No change from current trends. The construction activity is unlikely to cause accidents or -
physical injury Accidents, poisonings and physical physical injury to local residents.
injury rates are low though deaths due There is a potential for the additional heavy construction
to road traffic accidents are higher lorry traffic to result in an increase in road traffic
than the national average. accidents. This will depend on whether a route strategy
and timetable for major traffic movements is developed.
Local children could potentially gain access to the site
and get injured.
Some workers may be injured on the construction site
from falls, falling objects, collisions, etc.
Construction sites can and do have hazardous
substances on-site. This again is likely to be a greater
hazard for construction workers than for residents in the
surrounding area. The extent of the hazard to
construction workers will depend on the safety equipment
and safe storage and usage of the substances.
The hazard to residents, especially children ingesting or
coming into contact with hazardous chemicals, will
depend on the secure storage and security measures to
ensure no unauthorised access to the site.
64
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Mental health No change from current trends. Given the direction and phasing of the construction, the -
Rates of mental health illness are low. impacts on Trumpington will be much reduced after the
first phase of houses are built and the buffer zone of
green space is likely to ensure that the impacts are
minimal on the surrounding villages. But there is still
some likelihood for varying degrees of psychosocial
stress related to construction activities – noise, dust, dirt,
traffic, other disruption – and manifested as worry,
concern, frustration, anger and upset among existing
residents.
However, given the 8 year construction period there are
likely to be some cumulative nuisance effects for people
living close to the site.
Workers on the site could have psycho-social stress
related to their work depending on the quality of the
contractors used and the terms and conditions under
which they are employed.
Population profile No change from current trends. ~ Given that the existing land-use is business premises ~
The population is forecast to continue there will be an increase in the population density on the
growing with Trumpington continuing site. This will be both the construction workers as well as
to have a younger population that the new residents in the early phases of the development.
other more rural wards of interest in
South Cambridgeshire.
65
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Employment & economy No change from current trends. ~ It is likely that some or all of the construction related +/++
Employment opportunities in both employment will go to people in Cambridge City and
Cambridge City and South Cambridge South Cambridgeshire.
will continue to be good. The above will depend on the availability of local people
Residents of will continue to be with the relevant skills and the developer’s recruitment
employed in real estate, renting and drive proactively focusing on local and district
business activities; education, health construction workers and skilled craftspersons.
and social work; and wholesale and The development is likely to stimulate the wider economy
retail trade and repairs. of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire as the
construction starts using local sub-contractors and
businesses allied to construction. Businesses may also
be set up specifically to deal with activities related to the
construction.
There will also be additional passing trade for existing
shops and retail amenities in Trumpington from
construction workers going to and from the development
site.
The major beneficial impact is likely to be on those with
construction skills and experience and those who are
currently unemployed or under-employed.
66
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Housing and No change from current trends. ~/- Given the length of the construction phase it is very likely, -/--
accommodation All the wards of interest have some that if local recruitment is difficult, construction workers
level of relative deprivation in terms of will move into the area from outside of Cambridge City
barriers to housing and the living and South Cambridgeshire and its surrounding
environment. settlements. These workers are likely to either rent or buy
accommodation and may therefore create pressure on
House prices are likely to continue to the availability of housing, particularly affordable and
rise in line with district trends. good quality housing in Trumpington, Barton and
There is an influx of economic Haslingfield and The Eversdens.
migrants into the area, from eastern Though this will also be a potential economic opportunity
Europe in particular, and this will for private landlords.
create additional pressures on
housing. Given the distance of the development site from existing
homes there is unlikely to be any direct impacts on the
Land for traveller communities, and existing houses in terms of vibration effects and structural
the consequences of the lack of damage due to the construction work or lorry movements.
permitted sites, is likely to continue to
be a significant issues. The phased nature of the new development should also
make disruption of utility services – water, gas, electricity,
waste and sewage disposal less likely.
67
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Transport and connectivity No change from current trends. ~ There will be no direct effects on people’s access to -/--
Current transport and connectivity is private and public transport.
seen by local residents as good or There will be construction traffic and this will have some
improving and public transport with impact on the movement of private and public transport
the park and ride (also the southern vehicles on the roads in the area of the site, particularly
terminus of the new Guided Busway) Hauxton Road, over the life of the construction.
will continue to be good. There may be some negative nuisance impacts from the
Car use is likely to remain high. noise and vibration. Though continuous noise and
vibration effects can give rise to psycho-social stress
among these residents.
The construction traffic will increase the amount of
vehicle emissions however these are unlikely to cause
physical health effects on existing or new residents.
Though peaks in concentration can exacerbate the
symptoms of those with existing respiratory and
cardiovascular difficulties especially in older people and
children.
The increased construction traffic would affect all local
people using or living near the Hauxton Road.
Residents of Phase 1 will be particularly affected.
68
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Education and learning No change from current trends. ~ Construction workers employed on the site are likely to +/++
Levels of qualifications and skills are gain experience and on-the-job training.
high in all the wards of interest. If the developers link into local colleges and construction
training schemes then local people will have the
opportunity to gain the skills to be recruited for
construction as well as young people gaining work
experience on employment-linked apprenticeship-type
training schemes.
A primary school will be built as part of Phase 1 of the
development. Until this is complete temporary primary
school accommodation is to be provided on site re-using
the magistrates building that will move into its new
permanent accommodation in the city centre.
Crime and safety No change from current trends. ~ There is unlikely to be any significant increases in crime ~/-
Crime and disorder will continue to be because of the construction, especially during the early
at low levels except for The Shelfords phases as access to the development site will be limited.
and Stapleford. However, construction sites with their store of materials
and the influx of new people can make an area more
vulnerable to crime or, at least, to perceived as more
vulnerable to crime and less safe. This may mean that
police and community guardian/warden patrols may need
to be undertaken in and around the site to ensure
community safety.
69
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Health & social care No change from current trends. ~/- There will be some impact on local health and social care -
services Existing primary care services are services.
stretched and this situation is unlikely Injured or unwell workers on site will use Addenbrooke
to improve in the short to medium Hospital’s A&E department and local primary care
term. centres.
Residents moving into Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
development are likely to register with existing GPs in
locality until the proposed health centre with the Southern
Fringe is operational. This issue is discussed in the
operation phase.
Shops and other retail No change from current trends. ~ There will be some positive impact on local shops and +/++
amenities There are a good range of shops and amenities from passing trade from construction workers.
retail amenities in Trumpington and
Cambridge City Centre is easily
accessible.
Social capital and No change from current trends. ~ The construction is unlikely to impact negatively on the ~/-
cohesion There is some diversity and variety of social capital and cohesion of existing residents given the
local voluntary sector clubs, groups green buffer between the existing residents and
and organisations that highlights local development site which will mitigate many of the
people’s active engagement in their nuisance effects associated with the construction. Local
neighbourhoods. people have been aware of the plan to build new houses
in the Southern Fringe for many years.
The development of social capital and cohesion among
the new residents moving onto the development will be
affected by the ongoing construction however the majority
of residents will be making a positive choice to move into
the new development and will be aware of the potential
disruption caused by ongoing construction.
70
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Culture and leisure No change from current trends. ~ Existing culture and leisure facilities in and around ~
Culture and leisure facilities will Trumpington are likely to be affected by the construction
continue to be limited in the wards of activity or associated traffic.
interest particularly the wards in South
Cambridgeshire.
Lifestyle and daily Lifestyles and daily routines are likely ~ There is likely to be some disruption of movement -/--
routines to continue as they currently are. between the surrounding villages and Trumpington due to
the construction traffic.
This is dependent on a how the construction site and
associated traffic are managed and the adherence to the
constructors code of conduct by the contractors and sub-
contractors working on the site.
71
- FINAL.doc
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Land and spatial There are a range of strategic ~- The construction activity is likely to make the site visually -/--
developments proposed for the unattractive. However, the site currently has a range of
Southern Fringe to deal with housing buildings that are also unattractive and detract from the
pressures and population growth that visual appeal of the wider area.
are likely to change the urban and Some potential for the soil on the development site to
rural landscape in and around have agriculture-related heavy metals, hydrocarbons and
Trumpington, Barton, Harston and other chemical contamination. This is likely to be a
Hauxton, Haslingfield and the greater hazard for the construction workers undertaking
Eversdens and The Shelfords and the removal than residents in the surrounding area. The
Stapleford. extent of the hazard will depend on the safety protocols,
clothing and equipment used to safely remove and
dispose of these materials. For existing and new
residents the remediation of the site will remove
hazardous substances from the site and the potential risk.
Demolition and removal of solid waste will need to be
managed carefully especially if it is contaminated with
heavy metals, asbestos or other chemicals. The flow of
materials entering and exiting the site during the
construction phase can be significant and will depend on
how much can be re-used and recycled on the site. The
key effects are likely to be the increase in construction
traffic flows on the road and the potential for spillage and
throwing up of materials outside the site and thereby
creating new hazards for other vehicles and adult and
child pedestrians.
The local water company will need to be involved closely
in the water and sewage system design and construction
to ensure that there is no disruption of fresh water
supplies and sewage waste flows and reductions in water
quality to existing and new residents.
72
- FINAL.doc
Operation Phase (Years 4-8 during the construction phase and five years on)
Operation Phase No development impact Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension impact
– OPERATION PHASE
Overall No change from current trends. -- There will be a significant amount of good quality housing ++/+++
The health of the population will of all types including affordable housing. Given that all the
continue to be good. wards of interest show relative deprivation for barriers to
housing and services as well as the living environment
Population growth will mean there is the development will be a significant positive health
likely to be a continuing pressure on benefit for the local community and area.
and a shortage of housing of all types,
particularly affordable housing. Only a small number of shops and no community facilities
are envisaged for the development with health care
The employment opportunities for provision being provided by existing primary care centres
local people will remain the same and until a new health centre is built as part of the Southern
economic development will continue in Fringe of developments. There are good connections
real estate, renting and business between the new development and the new greenspace
activities; education; and health and which is being created. This will also make the
social care. greenspace accessible for local people in Trumpington.
Deprivation and social capital are The new greenspace is less accessible for residents of
likely to continue at similar levels. Barton (in particular residents of Grantchester), Harston
and Hauxton, Haslingfield and the Eversdens and The
Shelfords and Stapleford.
Overall the operation phase of the development will not
widen health inequalities provided that the development
is mixed with an appropriate amount of affordable and
keyworker housing of various sizes. There is connectivity
between the development site and the neighbouring
settlements.
Infectious diseases No change from current trends. The operation phase will not cause or spread infectious ~
The rates for infectious disease is low diseases to existing or new residents.
and immunisation rates are high.
73
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Non-infectious/chronic No change from current trends. The operation phase will not cause non-infectious/chronic ++/+++
diseases The main causes of death will diseases to existing or new residents.
continue to be circulatory diseases The good connectivity of the streets, cycleways and
(coronary heart disease and stroke) footpaths within the development as well as good access
and cancer (lung and bronchus, to public transport is likely to help ensure that obesity
colorectal, prostate and upper trends in the area do not rise and circulatory disease
digestive tract). remain low.
The development will create new greenspace to the
South of Trumpington.
Accidents, poisonings and No change from current trends. The operation phase will not cause accidents, poisonings ~/-
physical injury Accidents, poisonings and physical or physical injury to local residents.
injury rates are low though deaths due The development will increase car traffic in the area and
to road traffic accidents are higher is likely to result in an increase the absolute, but not the
than the national average. relative numbers of, road traffic accidents.
There will also be continuing construction traffic during
Years 4-8, to the site and this could pose a hazard to
residents of the first phase of the development if not
managed correctly.
Mental health No change from current trends. The development will create new greenspace to the +++
Rates of mental health illness are low South of Trumpington that will be highly accessible by
both the new residents and existing residents of
Trumpington. It is unclear how accessible the greenspace
will be from surrounding villages.
The development will provide new housing and a small
number of new employment opportunities for new and
existing residents in the area.
Existing residents living around the development site
have been aware of this development and local
consultation has shown that they are broadly in favour of
it.
74
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Population profile No change from current trends. ~ Given that the existing land-use is business premises ~
The population is forecast to continue there will be an increase in the population density on the
growing with Trumpington continuing site. This will be in line with that of Trumpington and
to have a younger population that the occur over a 4-6 year period.
other more rural wards of interest in Residents will begin moving onto the site after the first
South Cambridgeshire. phase.
New residents moving onto the new development are
likely to be young families and late middle age couples.
The majority are likely to be working families and have
stable incomes.
As new residents move into the built phases of the new
development the overall age structure will change
gradually during the construction and is likely to have a
profile and structure that is similar to Trumpington.
Employment & economy No change from current trends. -/-- The development will create a small amount of new +
Employment opportunities in both shopping and retail space.
Cambridge City and South Cambridge And there will be a loss of jobs from the site when the
will continue to be good. businesses currently occupying the site on a temporary
Residents continue to be employed in basis relocate.
real estate, renting and business
activities; education, health and social
work; and wholesale and retail trade
and repairs.
75
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Housing and No change from current trends. ~/- The new development will have a range of housing types +++
accommodation All the wards of interest have some including affordable housing.
level of relative deprivation in terms of On the new development as new residents move into the
barriers to housing and the living built phases the overall levels of tenure and turnover will
environment. obviously change. A mix of housing types and tenures is
House prices are likely to continue to planned.
rise in line with district trends. It is unlikely that there will be large positive or negative
There is an influx of economic changes in the prices of existing housing because of the
migrants into the area, from eastern new development itself.
Europe in particular, and this will The new housing will be built to a number of quality and
create additional pressures on building regulation standards. The development will
housing. therefore increase the stock of good quality housing in
Land for traveller communities, and the area.
the consequences of the lack of A commitment to the new Code for Sustainable Homes
permitted sites, is likely to continue to standards and important elements of Lifetimes Homes
be a significant issues. standards would ensure that the housing attracts both a
premium price for the developer and is a long term
positive housing asset to Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire.
76
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Transport and connectivity No change from current trends. ~ The development is built around the existing park and +++
Current transport and connectivity is ride facility which is to be the southern terminus of the
seen by local residents as good or guided busway making public transport central to the
improving and public transport with development and ensuring that all residents of the new
the park and ride (also the southern development are with easy walking distance of local
terminus of the new Guided Busway) buses. The increase in patronage is also likely to
will continue to be good. enhance local buses going to the surrounding villages.
Car use is likely to remain high. On the development itself there will be an interconnected
set of roads, cycleways and footpaths to ensure that
residents have every opportunity to reduce their use of
cars.
There will be an increase in motor vehicle traffic on the
road inside and around the development however with
some modifications these are within the capacity of the
existing routes.
There is an aspiration limit speeds to 20mph and to
create shared spaces. A stronger commitment to embed
HomeZone principles that create family and child friendly
neighbourhoods where residents can meet and children
can play would enhance the health and wellbeing of the
new residents.
Education and learning No change from current trends. ~ The development will provide one primary school. This +++
Levels of qualifications and skills are will be an opportunity to use the best design practice in
high in all the wards of interest. relation to schools and ensure that school becomes a
community resource for adults and children alike both as
a learning and sporting resource.
Crime and safety No change from current trends. ~ Crime and safety issues are likely to follow the same -
Crime and disorder will continue to be trends as Trumpington, Barton, Haslingfield and The
at low levels except for The Shelfords Eversdens. However, given that there will be an increase
and Stapleford. in the local population absolute numbers of crimes is
likely to increase.
77
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Health & social care No change from current trends. ~/- A health centre is not proposed for the development as a ---
services Existing primary care services are health centre will be built as part of the wider set of
stretched and this situation is unlikely Southern Fringe developments. It is unclear when exactly
to improve in the short to medium this health centre will be built.
term. Residents moving into the first phase of the development
are therefore likely to register with existing GPs and
health centres in the area for many years. Given that 600
residential units will be created in the first phase and 600
the second, it is likely that there will be a resident
population of 1440 people in the first phase by 2011-12
and 1440 in the second phase by 2015 (taking the
national household average size of 2.4 people per
household). This will create significant pressures on
existing primary care services in area and will mean 1
extra GP and associated primary care team will need to
be recruited for each of the two phases of development.
It is important to consider the early setting up of the
proposed health centre for the Southern Fringe to ensure
that primary care provision is planned ahead of the influx
of new residents to reduce the impacts on both new and
existing residents.
There will be similar impact on local dental services.
It is likely that existing pharmacy services in the area will
be able to cope with the additional number of potential
users/customers.
There is unlikely to be pressure on social care services
during the early phases of the development as the people
likely to move into the new development will tend to be
healthier than the general population. Additionally the
wards of interest have a population that is healthier than
the national average and has fewer people with long term
limiting illnesses. However, there will need to be strategic
planning for the long term delivery of social care to
ensure independent living in old age as well as the
development of care and nursing homes.
78
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Shops and other retail No change from current trends. ~ The proposed development will have a shop and it is ++
amenities There are a good range of shops and envisaged that new residents will use existing shopping
retail amenities in Trumpington and and retail amenities in Trumpington and Cambridge.
Cambridge City Centre is easily There is likely to be an increase in business for existing
accessible. shops and retail amenities in Trumpington as well as to a
lesser degree, in Barton and Haslingfield and The
Eversdens.
Social capital and No change from current trends. ~ The proposed form and structure of the proposed ++
cohesion There is some diversity and variety of development is likely to enhance social capital and
local voluntary sector clubs, groups cohesion within the development.
and organisations that highlights local The development will also link strongly into the existing
people’s active engagement in their bus network and potentially increase the number of
neighbourhoods. potential passengers going to the surrounding villages.
But community facilities are limited. Existing residents living around the development site
have been aware of this development and local
consultation has shown that they are broadly in favour of
it.
79
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Culture and leisure No change from current trends. ~ The school is proposed to be dual use with the provision +++
Culture and leisure facilities will of community facilities within it in addition to the usual
continue to be limited in the wards of primary school requirements. The community facilities
interest particularly the wards in South include: a floodlit MUGA, floodlit tennis court, grass junior
Cambridgeshire. pitch, a separate foyer entrance leading to changing
facilities and toilet, an enlarged hall and heightened
ceiling for indoor sports, storage space, two community
rooms, two offices, and a kitchen.
The development will enhance and create new
greenspace to the South of Trumpington that will be
highly accessible by both the new residents and existing
residents of Trumpington.
There will also be formal play spaces and play equipment
at the northern end of the proposed greenspace.
There will be an access route through an exiting rights of
way from Grantchester.
Additionally given that a motorway cuts across the
proposed greenspace it is less likely that new and
existing residents to the north of the motorway will fully
access the greenspace south of the motorway. It is
envisaged that the main access point will be an existing
footbridge across the motorway. There is an existing
underpass but there are flood risk concerns that make its
use problematic. Alongside this underpass tend to be less
used that surface and bridge connections as they tend to
be perceived as unsafe and can become a magnet for
anti-social activities.
One key issue will be having clearly defined and agreed
on responsibilities for the management and maintenance
of public green and open spaces as well as streets and
neighbourhoods.
80
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Lifestyle and daily Lifestyles and daily routines are likely ~ The development will improve what has been a set of +/++
routines to continue as they currently are. business premises with scrub land.
There is unlikely to be any disruption of movement
between Trumpington and the surrounding villages due to
the increase in car traffic generated by the development.
The new development being at one end of Trumpington
and buffered by greenspace from surrounding villages is
likely to ensure that the lifestyles and daily routines of
existing residents in the area are not disrupted.
The new greenspace and the potential increase in
passengers on local bus services to the surrounding
villages is likely to ensure that rural bus services are
maintained.
81
- FINAL.doc
– OPERATION PHASE
Land and spatial There are a range of strategic ~- This is a key strategic site that needs to be developed in +++
developments proposed for the a balanced way.
Southern Fringe to deal with housing There is a need for more housing in and around
pressures and population growth that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire over the next 20
are likely to change the urban and years.
rural landscape in and around
Trumpington, Barton, Harston and The proposed housing development will have affordable
Hauxton, Haslingfield and the and keyworker housing as well as create a significant
Eversdens and The Shelfords and amount of new greenspace.
Stapleford. The proposed development can play a significant role in
delivering housing that is balanced and sustainable.
There is no loss of greenspace and important farming
land is retained. The important elements of the flora and
fauna of the area as well as the heritage are preserved
and enhanced.
The Waste Audit (Pete Brett Associates, April 2007)
identifies how residents will have easy access to the
existing recycling facilities at Waitrose and the internal
space requirements for homes to comply with the Code
for Sustainable Homes and the RECAP Design for Waste
guidance.
82
- FINAL.doc
83
- FINAL.doc

Trumping Ton Meadows HIA Report - FINAL

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trumping Ton Meadows HIA Report - FINAL

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trumpington Meadows

peter brett associates

Tel: +44 (0)118 950 0761

PBA Document Control Sheet

Project Ref : 15694

Report Title : Health Impact Assessment Report

Date: : 25 April 2007

Name Position Signature Date

Checked and Dr Claire Holman Divisional Director

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates

© Peter Brett Associates 2004

2 Health Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 5

4 Background Context .................................................................................13

6 Baseline and Community Profile...............................................................20

7 Social Determinants of Health ..................................................................36

9 Health Impacts of Current Trends with No New Development ..................45

10 Health Impacts of the New Development ..................................................49

12 Key References .........................................................................................59

1.1.3 Outline planning applications were submitted to South Cambridgeshire District

1.1.5 The HIA focussed on seven key themes:

1.1.10 Potential impacts on health and social care services.

1.1.11 Potential indirect, cumulative and synergistic health impacts.

2 Health Impact Assessment

2.2 Our approach to HIA

Trumpington Meadows Sustainable Urban Extension, Trumpington, Cambridge

Natural Social Lifestyles and Transport Employment Social capital, Availability

Health and wellbeing impacts (direct and indirect)

2.3 Our general HIA methodology

Baseline assessment and community profile

Stakeholder consultation and involvement

Health impact statement

3.2 Study area

3.3 Study population

3.4.2 A range of information sources were considered including Office of National

3.4.4 No specific HIA-related wider stakeholder or community consultation was undertaken

3.5 Analysis and assessment criteria

Significance Level Criteria

• Which population groups are affected and in what way?

• Is the effect reversible or irreversible?

• Is the effect permanent or temporary?

• Does it increase or decrease with time?

• Is it of local, regional, national or international importance?

• Is it beneficial, neutral or adverse?

• Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened?

• Are mitigating measures available and is it reasonable to require these?

• Are the effects direct, indirect and or cumulative?

4.1 Proposed Development

• approximately 1,200 dwellings on 30 ha of gross development, including 30%

• 1.75ha primary school site incorporating additional community facilities

• approximately 60 ha of riverside community park

• a comprehensive network of footpaths and cycleways

• a gateway feature into Cambridge city and the site.

4.2.2 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) subsequently

4.2.3 Trumpington Meadows is identified for sustainable residential development as part of

4.3 Planning, design and assessment work carried out to date

• Design and access statement

• Supplementary Design and Access Statement (Terence O’Rourke Ltd)

5.2 National Policy

5.2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)

5.2.3 Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications (August 2001)

5.2.4 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August

5.2.8 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (March 2001)

5.2.15 UK 2006 Climate Change Programme