Question 1. How do you think we should involve our communities and stakeholders in developing the Plan?

I am an active member of Camcycle (Cambridge cycling Campaign) and wish to endorse the very full response they have made to this consultation. I believe that in order to address the climate emergency there needs to be a step change in not only the words used in the Local Plan, but also in the iimplementation of policies which will actually lead to a zero carbon society. I do not have time to respond individually to the consultation questions but ask that you add my voice to those supporting the Camcycle response.

• Please take careful consideration of the contributions from Camcycle and include them in ongoing development on the Local Plan.

The plan should be the subject of detailed in-depth consultations with key stakeholders (such as UKPN, the County Council and the Environment Agency) and positive discussions with local communities through a range of measures. Reaching out to young people is vitally important.

It would help if this form was not so protected that: ** Spell correction and autocorrect don't work. ** Selecting words or paragraphs for easier editing doesn't work. ** Typographical elements that help clarity such as bold, italics, bullets can't be used. Your stakeholders could then provide more readablel responses more easily!

There is a feeling that community responses are ignored in consultations. If there are a lot of complaints about a location please take them seriously. Take the new school site Buxhall farm, Histon beyond the general objections – the access and safety of access has not properly been dealt with. Could you not have found an extra 5m swathe around the perimeter to plant trees? The issue of parents double parking hasn’t been resolved but at the same time access for cyclists and walkers will not be good enough and perceived as dangerous. In France they were building zebra crossings every 25m down high streets in some village locations – doing that in Histon would be a game changer particularly along the B1049 in conjunction with the High Street and Station Road. Those who are most impacted upon a new development deserve to be treated better. So when you get money from the developers for the community perhaps the first question should be can we spend some of this money on the people most impacted by this development. Communicate, communicate, communicate. How can we make it better? What specific aspects of this concern you? All of this takes time and money and communication but that is the only way to take people with you if you are contemplating significant development and change.

While the Localism Act places a duty on public bodies to co-operate on planning issues across boundaries, it is also important that the Greater Cambridge authorities engage in open, positive and proactive discussions with all relevant stakeholders and parties that have land and other strategic interests within the plan-area that will have a material role to play in meeting Planned objectives. This includes engagement that goes beyond the boundaries of Regulation 18 and 19 consultations. M&M supports the ethos of open and proactive engagement and welcome the opportunity to engage with the authorities and stakeholders throughout the plan preparation process. More intense and creative engagement at this early stage will facilitate proper analysis of all issues and opportunities that will shape the spatial strategy in the next plan period.

We strongly welcome the environmental ambition outlined in this consultation. This level of ambition will be essential to address the climate and ecological emergencies declared by the Greater Cambridge councils, and to achieve the agreed ‘doubling nature’ target. We look forward to working with the councils to deliver a revised and improved Local Plan and to unlocking the substantial benefits for nature and for residents. The RSPB manage several sites within the Greater Cambridge area, including our reserves at Fen Drayton, Fowlmere and Hope Farm at Knapwell, and are working with Hanson to create one of Europe’s largest new reedbeds at their Needingworth quarry. We would encourage the planning authorities to work proactively with nature conservation organisations operating in the plan area to identify existing green networks and infrastructure and the potential opportunities for significant habitat creation associated with development (and mineral extraction) likely to occur up to 2040. As such we would encourage the authorities to work closely through the Local Nature Partnership and directly with local NGO players when formulating policy approaches and identifying sites linked to your Biodiversity and Green Spaces theme.

Southern & Regional Developments (Willingham) agree that the Local Planning Authority have a duty to involve and consult with the community including local residents, businesses, interest groups and landowners in the formation of policies that will shape the Local Plan for Greater Cambridge. This is asserted at Paragraph 16c of the National Planning Policy Framework where it states that Plans should; "be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees." It is considered important to ensure that Local Plan documents including background information is easily accessible on the Council's website and it would be helpful if e-mail alerts were provided to Planning Consultants and Developers to make them aware of when each stage of the Plan is available for comment. It is important the Council ensures that the ongoing Plan preparation process is open and accessible to all, identifying the most appropriate times for public commentary which will provide significant local insight to the Plan process and practical requirements for local communities. Summary of Comments: Preparation of the emerging Local Plan must ensure accessibility for all and provide means of commentary throughout the process.

The Councils should make every effort possible to get people involved in the process – the lack of public awareness was a serious failing of the 2018 Plan. Clearly Councils do not have unlimited resources, so we suggest some options that might be given priority: • It is essential to manage people’s expectations if they are asked to contribute. Too often people are consulted, they give their views, but their views are not acted upon. This can leave people feeling angry/ignored/cynical/suspicious rather than involved or engaged (that often includes us!). Consultation and engagement activities ought to make clear the extent to which people’s views will (or will not) be acted upon. The nature and types of questions asked should allow people to genuinely influence an outcome. It is also essential that people who do make the effort to respond have this effort recognised by a letter of thanks and by keeping them actively engaged by email in the process as the Plan evolves. • The Local Plan is a large, complex, and legalistic piece of work. As a result, much of it is impenetrable to anyone but a planner. We feel that the majority of people will only be interested in a small number of key policies and spatial issues, as well as spatial issues that directly impact their neighbourhood. We feel that identifying these issues is vital as the basis for wider public engagement, which could then be carried out in user friendly ways (for example the use of easy to understand language, images, etc). We are pleased to see the use of images on the website that has been set up for the Local Plan. • The use of ‘planning for real’ and other hands-on public friendly engagement techniques can be a good way of engaging the wider public in the complex issues associated with planning and we would support the use of these in Cambridge. • Exhibitions or consultations in communities that will be directly affected by new plans, especially those locations where new development is earmarked. • Efforts should be made to engage with “hard-to-reach” groups. We would suggest through door-door research in certain neighbourhoods, as well as through face-face discussions with the representatives of these groups. • At the other end of the spectrum, there are well informed community groups and stakeholders, such as CambridgePPF, that will want to examine the detail. For these groups, getting easy access to information is important. We are pleased to see a website specifically for the Local Plan and that this has a “further reading” section. We would like this developed further so that it pulls together all the published documents and evidence-base relating to the Local Plan, including decisions/minutes from relevant Council meetings (or at least web-links to them). We need a one-stop-shop – as will Councillors and officers. • The relationship between the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans (NPs), both adopted and emerging, needs clarifying. Neighbourhood Plans have to comply with the Local Plan. Therefore, it is possible that changes to the Local Plan could require consequent revisions to a Neighbourhood Plan. Neighbourhood Plans are usually heavily consulted upon and have been created by the community. We would recommend that the Council engages at an early stage with those communities that have created, or are in the process of creating, Neighbourhood Plans.

Use all the methods to maximize community engagement : roadshows, workshops, parish councils, social media

Please take careful consideration of the contributions from Camcycle and include them in ongoing development on the Local Plan. In addition to widespread consultation, you should be hosting workshops on specific topics, and bringing in expertise from the local community regarding matters such as cycle parking design.

Strongly encouraged by intention to consult a wide range within our communities. However, the depth of the consideration required to properly respond to the report is not amenable to “vox pop” responses in front of supermarkets. The informing of the communities through a wide range of media still leaves the Local Plan as the most important document our residents are unaware of. Extra events have been arranged in Histon and Impington but this has only partially remedied the shortfall of the official events not including an indoors, or one available to working residents, event. A more flexible approach would have been more effective, such as canvassing on a single issue at a time. The questions with provided short answers do not allow a more nuanced response over a range of scaled options. Residents would and should be encouraged to participate more by a clear feedback and evidence of taking the views into account throughout the whole Plan development process. Perhaps asking for opinions on key matters continuously through the development of this first consultation report would have been more effective, and welcome: the necessary polish on this first report has, for some, reinforced the view that consultation is of little value on what is already a done deal.

It is recommended that the GCA consider and appreciate the opportunities that are on offer within Essex and the level of growth that is expected within our county over the next 20 years. It is important to note that within Essex there are key locations of growth and economic activity located within proximity to the South Cambridgeshire District boundary, these include (but are not limited to) Harlow (and the wider Harlow Gilston Garden Town), London Stansted Airport, Great Chesterford Research Park and emerging proposals for garden communities within Uttlesford District Council. The key transport corridors of influence include the M11, A120 and the West Anglian Mainline. ECC recommends that the GCA engage with ECC officers and members on an active and ongoing basis to ensure the Joint Local Plan is deliverable and viable and takes account of relevant cross boundary strategic matters in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This covers ECC’s role as the strategic transport and highways authority, Local Education Authority (including Early Years and Childcare), Lead Local Flood Authority, Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA), a provider and commissioner for adult social care, and lead advisors on public health. ECC can provide advice to ensure that the evidence supporting the emerging Joint Local Plan is consistent from an Essex perspective. ECC recommends that consideration is given to cross-boundary matters and an acknowledgement of how the GCA are engaging with the lower and higher tier authorities that adjoin the GCA located in Essex. ECC would be eager to ensure that discussions seek to establish the expectations for delivering sustainable growth through the timely provision of infrastructure aligned with development, delivery of high quality garden communities, provision for employment opportunities, and ensuring sustainable travel for all that live and work in the locality. ECC also recommends that the GCA liaises with Highways England in both the Essex and Cambridgeshire areas as the M11 is a key conduit to London and the wider region, and its constraints and the need for improvement need to be recognise

Please take careful consideration of the contributions from organisations focusing on climate change, biodiversity and reducing social inequality (Camcycle, Extinction Rebellion, Cambridge Carbon Footprint, Transition Cambridge) and include them in ongoing development on the Local Plan.

The Councils should review the demographics of those who have been consulted previously, to understand from which parts of the community most responses are received, and which parts of the community are poorly represented. Those who have previously been poorly represented should be targeted through social media, other channels and events, designed to suit their needs. The monitoring information used to determine whether the equalities policy has been effective should not therefore simply be related to the number of responses (as identified in Section B2 of the previous South Cambridgeshire SCI equality impact assessment4). This would not identify any equality issues as the information is not sufficient to identify them – i.e. the exercise is pointless. Demographic data must therefore be collected to ensure that a wide range of responses, from a wide range of participants, is gathered. The data needs to be monitored across both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire, as the Local Plan affects both areas equally

As well as the outlined methods, collect interested residents and businesses emails and keep them informed, encourage comments/questions and respond in a timely manner. Hold a large forum 2/3 times a year to update residents/businesses on progress and take onboard comments – two-way dialogue. Establish a working group that includes residents/businesses to guide the project. Provide an easy read summary of documents to enable wider participation.

Southern & Regional Developments (Swavesey) consider that the Local Planning Authority have a duty to involve and consult with the community including local residents, businesses, interest groups and landowners in the formation of policies that will shape the Local Plan for Greater Cambridge. This is asserted at Paragraph 16c of the National Planning Policy Framework where it states that Plans should; "be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees." It is considered important to ensure that Local Plan documents including background information is easily accessible on the Council's website and it would be helpful if e-mail alerts were provided to land onners, Agents, Planning Consultants and Developers to make them aware of when each stage of the Plan is available for comment. It is important the Council ensures that the ongoing Plan preparation process is open and accessible to all, identifying the most appropriate times for public commentary which will provide significant local insight to the Plan process and practical requirements for local communities. Summary of Comments: Preparation of the emerging Local Plan must ensure accessibility for all and provide means of commentary throughout the process.

Start with developing a Vision. Perhaps use the 2065 Vision document coupled with thorough baseline research. The current exercise has inadequate research and information to credibly engage a wide range of communities and get them to commit the time and effort needed.

European Property Ventures (Cambridgshire) consider that the Local Planning Authority have a duty to involve and consult with the community including local residents, businesses, interest groups and landowners in the formation of policies that will shape the Local Plan for Greater Cambridge. This is asserted at Paragraph 16c of the National Planning Policy Framework where it states that Plans should; "be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees." It is considered important to ensure that Local Plan documents including background information is easily accessible on the Council's website and it would be helpful if e-mail alerts were provided to Planning Consultants and Developers to make them aware of when each stage of the Plan is available for comment. It is important the Council ensures that the ongoing Plan preparation process is open and accessible to all, identifying the most appropriate times for public commentary which will provide significant local insight to the Plan process and practical requirements for local communities. Summary of Comments: Preparation of the emerging Local Plan must ensure accessibility for all and provide means of commentary throughout the process.

The methods you have outlined appear adequate providing the ‘roadshows’ include visits to all affected villages at times when residents can actually attend i.e. evenings and weekends, and the staff present have the skills and knowledge to answer questions.

Q1 and Q5 Stakeholder engagement and cross-boundary issues We support the Councils’ approach to stakeholder engagement and consideration of cross boundary projects including Oxford-Cambridge Arc, the Combined Authority Strategies, Greater Cambridge Partnership, County strategies and neighbouring Local Authorities. Natural England is satisfied that the Councils’ approach meets the relevant duty to cooperate requirements. We agree with the key cross-boundary issues identified including wildlife and green infrastructure, transport and water including supply, quality, waste water and flood risk. The Local Plan will need to take a strategic approach to these issues to ensure that the proposed scale of development is sustainable and will not adversely impact the natural environment. In particular the Local Plan should promote the delivery of a strategic green infrastructure network that is resilient to the scale of development proposed, capable of protecting designated sites and supporting habitat, and delivering the wider range of environmental services to meet development needs. This will require the delivery of a strategic GI network that contributes towards and complements the enhancement objectives of cross-boundary projects such as the Ox-Cam Arc Local Natural Capital Plan and landscape-scale priority areas such as the West Cambridgeshire Hundreds, Cambridgeshire Fens, the Chalk & Chilterns and the National Trust’s Wicken Fen Vision Area.

The present multi-pronged approach is satisfactory. - Please develop 2 or 3 locations such as council offices and public libraries where where the proposals and supporting doculments can be examined as hard copy, - Provide some direct feedback on points raised in responses.

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH), incorporating Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Rosie Maternity Hospital has over 1,000 beds and 11,000 members of staff. We are one of the largest and best known acute hospital trusts in the country. The ‘local’ hospital for our community, CUH is also a leading regional and national centre for specialist treatment; a government designated comprehensive biomedical research centre; a partner in one of six academic health science centres in the UK – Cambridge University Health Partners (CUHP); and a university teaching hospital with a worldwide reputation. The next phase of development requires the upgrade of the aging NHS facilities at the core of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus's vision. It is the Trust's view that this upgrade provides a further opportunity for the NHS (beyond the vision of the CBC) - a once in a generation chance to use capital investment to integrate our care models, strengthen regional ties, and improve the health care experience of patients locally and across the East of England. There are three key NHS builds proposed to facilitate this: 1) Cambridge Children's - a paediatric hospital that integrates acute and mental health care, improving the pathways and support to patients and staff across the East of England. This project has been successfully granted £100m of funding. 2) The Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital - a hospital that brings together world class research (University of Cambridge) on methods to improve the early detection and diagnosis of cancer with the clinical (CUH) and commercial facilities to deliver that care. This project has yet to identify a funding source, however discussions are ongoing with industry partners and government departments; and 3) The rebuild of the core of Addenbrooke's Hospital - replacing aging NHS building with a new fit for purpose facility (Addenbrooke's 3) designed to maximise local integration with primary care and community service, working closely with GPs, community nursing, therapy teams, social workers and charities to transform the workforce and co-ordinate services more effectively, ensuring patients get quick and easy access to the care they need closer to home; alongside improving pathways and support to patients and staff across the East of England. In the timeline of this Local Plan, other projects may include other specialist facilities such as a neurosciences facility and a movement centre. Given the significance of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Addenbrooke’s Hospital to the area, in addition to the statutory consultation periods, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) strongly encourages the Local Planning Authorities to engage with key delivery partners in the area, including CUH. CUH wishes to engage proactively with the plan making process, to ensure that the growth envisaged is closely aligned with and supported by the expansion of key elements of infrastructure such as the Addenbrooke’s Hospital Campus (see our response to question 2). Policies of the plan should ensure the future plans for CUH and the wider Biomedical campus can be accommodated and to improve the local hospital for the residents of Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire, but to ensure the campus as a whole continues to drive nationally significant progress in health outcomes. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust would welcome the opportunity to engage directly at all levels to help the Local Planning Authorities to understand the opportunities, challenges and vision for the Addenbrooke’s site, its staff and patients. Good planning both on and off-site is essential to the Trust’s ability to attract and retain staff and deliver the World-class treatment, teaching and research for which it is renowned

Cambridge University Health Partners (CUHP) is a Department of Health Academic Health Science Centre, uniting the University of Cambridge with three highly respected research-active NHS Foundation Trusts: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, an integrated mental health and community services provider, Cambridge University Hospitals, combining Addenbrooke’s and the Rosie hospitals, and Royal Papworth, the UK’s leading specialist cardiorespiratory hospital. CUHP has the distinct opportunity of having a remarkable combination of world class assets - health, science and industrial – all situated on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). Further major organisations represented on the site include AstraZeneca, Abcam and the Medical Research Council. CUHP work to maximise the benefits conferred by this co-location, encouraging close collaboration between campus partners to accelerate the translation of discovery science and to improve health and care delivery. In this capacity, CUHP convene a CBC Strategy Group with representation from all campus organisations, which has agreed to develop a Vision 2050 for the CBC. Subject to ratification by the CBC Strategy Group, this will be shared with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service by summer 2020 to define the extent, scale and location of development proposed throughout the timescale of the next Local Plan, and the anticipated number of jobs to be supported by the CBC by 2050. CUHP anticipate a continued dialogue with officers and Councillors to establish a positive future vision for the CBC, underpinned by a supportive planning framework to enable its’ delivery.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) is a Partnership of the following organisations: • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust • Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust • Cambridgeshire County Council • East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust • NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG • NHS Property Services • North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust • Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust • Peterborough City Council The role of the STP is to bring together the key organisations in the NHS with wider system partners in order to more effectively plan health and wider services within Cambridgeshire & Peterborough. The priorities for the STP are summarised as follows: Priorities • Integrated out of hospital care Focusing on population needs, we will join up out-of-hospital services more effectively, building on the foundations of strong primary care and providing additional support where necessary. • Outpatient transformation We will change the way we deliver our outpatient services to ensure that our patients are seen by the right professionals in the right places. • Redesigning care pathways to improve efficiency and reduce unwarranted variation We will improve the quality of the care we provide by reducing variations in the way services are delivered, adopting best practice. • Making the most of our assets We will identify opportunities to make the best use of our high fixed cost assets, including estates and digital infrastructure. As part of this agenda, the STP partners are working together to ensure a more collaborative approach and a coordinated NHS response to growth. The ‘planning for health’ workstream within the STP has a core objective to engage more effectively with the planning system, to include policy development, responding to planning applications, and ensuring co-ordinate health provision that aligns with the growing population of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. As an STP, we wish to be closely involved with the development of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan to ensure the best possible health outcomes are a key part of the plan and that health infrastructure is given appropriate priority in planning decision making. The STP is developing its strategy in this area and is looking to appoint a single point of contact to engage on policy development, Local Plans, planning applications and CIL/S106. We wish to encourage an open and consultative relationship with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service, including on the development of the new Local Plan.

The Cambridgeshire Development Forum brings together organisations interested in the more effective delivery of development, with a focus on practical means of simplifying and accelerating development. We would be glad to offer further meetings which can complement other engagement with stakeholder communities. In addition, we are very aware that by the latter stages of this Plan period, the new home-owners will be drawn from amongst the young people presently in their late teens or early 20s. So, we propose that the Authorities commission an independent research organisation to recruit a representative panel of 18-25-year olds, who will be briefed on the issues and act as a ‘Citizen’s Assembly’ to give their perspectives on the issues as they emerge.

3.84 Grosvenor supports the innovative and extensive approach the Councils have taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. 3.85 Grosvenor has a successful record of working with the Councils and local employers. Furthermore, as part of its Corporate Responsibility principles, Grosvenor has been exploring ways to encourage broader and deeper engagement on its development proposals.

3.84 Grosvenor supports the innovative and extensive approach the Councils have taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. 3.85 Grosvenor has a successful record of working with the Councils and local employers. Furthermore, as part of its Corporate Responsibility principles, Grosvenor has been exploring ways to encourage broader and deeper engagement on its development proposals.

Grosvenor supports the innovative and extensive approach the Greater Cambridge Planning team (GCP) has taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. In 2019 Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (GBI) conducted the largest ever canvassing of public trust in placemaking in the UK. As well as measuring levels of public distrust in placemaking and large-scale development, the research also unpicks the drivers of this lack of trust. We are now seeking to bring together a range of representatives from the development industry, public sector and civic society to help us act to restore trust in the planning system. Too often there is a stand-off between communities, developers and councils that stalls development, to the detriment of all. To understand the issue, we conducted the largest ever canvassing of public trust in placemaking in the UK, which found that trust in the planning system is almost non-existent. When it comes to planning for large-scale development just 2% of the public trust developers to act in an honest way and only 7% trust local authorities to make decisions in the best interests of the area. Below is a summary of the findings: About the research Incorporating social media analysis, a series of two dozen qualitative interviews with councillors, developers and members of the public and business community as well as a focus group with community leaders, the first stage of the research saw Grosvenor looking to understand and map out the different facets of the planning process through the eyes of different stakeholders. This informed a second stage of research in the form of an online survey run by YouGov with 15 closed questions and a nationally representative sample of 2,183 members of the public in March 2019. This represents the largest ever canvassing of the public on trust in the planning system. Key findings Just 2% of participants said they trusted developers to act in an honest way when it comes to large-scale developments. The remainder were divided between distrusting developers (49%) and feeling apathy towards them (40%), with 9% saying they don’t know. The picture for local authorities is not too dissimilar. When asked whether they trusted their local council to make decisions on large-scale development that are in the best interests of their local area, just 7% of respondents said they did. Over a third (36%) said that they distrusted their council, while half (50%) expressed apathy. The remainder 7% said they don’t know. People who have interacted with the planning system are more likely to think large-scale development has had a negative impact on their local area. Of those respondents who had either shared their views with the local council on a development project, or attended a public consultation, over 60% (66% and 62% respectively) felt negatively about the impact of development on their local area. The biggest driver of distrust in developers was the perception that they only care about making or saving money: 75% of respondents identified it as a reason for their lack of trust. The second most commonly cited reason for distrust was the belief that developers do not care about the needs of the local community (54%). The drivers of distrust in local authorities are broader-based. A considerable number of participants (49%) cited councils only caring about making or saving money, while 43% believed that councils are not held to account on their promises. Councils’ perceived failure to represent the requirements of the local community is also a key driver, 39% of respondents saying councils don’t care what the local community needs, and another 38% saying they don’t understand what that community needs. When asked for ways to increase public trust in large-scale development, respondents cited the most popular as ways to hold private developers (74%) and local authorities (72%) to account for what was promised. More opportunity for local people to influence the outcome of development (71%) and more transparency from private developers through the planning process (69%) were also popular.

2.01 The Consultation material and publicity seeks to encourage a wide range of individuals and organisations to respond, all of which is positive and to be welcomed. It should be acknowledged that feedback from local communities and organisations is one of a number of factors that will inform decisions about the strategy and policies for emerging GCLP. For example, national planning guidance, technical evidence and feedback from statutory consultees will have a key role in informing decisions, and it would not be a sound approach to ignore these factors.