Debate over public funding and 200-space car park at Waterbeach’s new railway station

Debate over whether public money should be funding the new Waterbeach railway station has resurfaced, along with questions over why it will have a 200-space car park.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s (GCP) joint assembly has recommended that the executive board should approve the full business case and enter into contracts with builders for the station, which could be built by 2027.

It will replace the existing Waterbeach station, in Station Road, to serve the new town under construction but concerns were shared again that public money will subsidise the project, which a private developer had originally planned to build.

South Cambridgeshire District Council gave planning permission for the new station in 2020. It was a requirement of separate plans to build 4,500 homes as part of Waterbeach New Town.

The housing developer was originally due to lead the project but in June 2022, the GCP was asked to take it on as the developer was not able to make a commercial deal to deliver the scheme.

The GCP agreed to assume responsibility for the project, and the cost risk, to ensure the housing development at Waterbeach proceeded. A budget of £43.35million has been agreed for the station, with the GCP providing £20m and Homes England providing a grant for the rest. The developer will be required to repay this grant to Homes England.

Cllr Heather Williams, the leader of the Conservative opposition on South Cambridgeshire District Council, said when councillors approved plans for the station, they were “given assurances that funding was in place” and that “no public funds were going to be needed”. However, she said this had been “shattered within moments” when the GCP was asked to fund the project.

Cllr Williams asked again about the possibility of ways to get the money back from the developer, if the Waterbeach development is more profitable than expected.

Officers said there is a condition in place that if the developer makes more money from the house sales than expected, they will be required to give more money to Cambridgeshire County Council for transport projects.

Peter Blake, interim director at the GCP, said funding for the project had been considered a number of times by members. He said there is a need to provide housing in the area, and as the station has to be provided first, there ended up being a need for some form of public subsidy. He said this was the case for a lot of major developments in the country.

Concerns were also raised about the size of the car park proposed at the new station.

Josh Grantham, from Camcycle, criticised the plan to create a 200-space car park at the new station. He said the business case showed there would not be a demand for that number of spaces and said the project is missing an “unique opportunity” to “integrate active travel with rail use”.

Mr Grantham said: “The station is uninspiring but functional. However, the car park is unjustified, unwise, and represents poor value for money. It effectively says ‘welcome to Waterbeach, please drive here’.”

Officers explained that the design of the new station is being progressed in line with the approved planning permission, which includes 200 car parking spaces. They said the size of the car park will help ensure there is enough space during peak demand periods.

They added that the station will also “support active travel” with cycle parking, and highlighted ongoing work to integrate the station with the proposed Waterbeach Greenway.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Paul Bearpark, who represents Waterbeach and Landbeach on South Cambridgeshire District Council, said the station was one of the things people had contacted him the most about since he was elected. He had questions about the car park and the station’s facilities.

He recognised the plans for the station were originally brought forward by the developer, but said what was proposed is “very basic”. For a town which could eventually have a population of about 30,000, plus those in the existing village, there needed to be “proper facilities at this station”, he argued.

He understood facilities could not be provided from the start, but suggested they could “safeguard” some land where a travel hub could later be built to offer more facilities nearby in future.

He suggested that as the modelling showed a demand for 170 car parking spaces by 2050, some of the car park land could be safeguarded for the travel hub.

Officers explained that as the car park is part of the consented planning application they would need to discuss any changes with the planning team.

Cllr Bearpark highlighted that he had more recently become aware that Network Rail will make the decision on when the station actually opens. He shared concerns about the new station opening before the homes in the new town it is due to serve are built.

This would “disadvantage” people living in the existing village, since it will move the station further away from them to the “middle of nowhere”.

Officers said plans are on track for the station to be built by the end of 2027, but confirmed Network Rail will decide..

Peter Wakefield, vice chair of Railfuture East Anglia, asked the GCP to consider keeping both stations. He highlighted that since the plan to relocate the station was first agreed, the government has since set out its growth plans for the area.

Mr Wakefield argued that the existing station is still “fit for purpose” and could help the growing communities have easier access to travelling by rail.

Officers said the closure of the existing station will follow the statutory process, which will include a consultation. They added that the final decision on the closure will be made by the Department for Transport and the rail industry.

The GCP executive board is due to meet next month, where it is expected to be asked to agree to the station’s full business case, and delegate authority to the interim director of the GCP to enter into contracts for the construction of the station.