Question 4. Do you agree that planning to 2040 is an appropriate date in the future to plan for? If not, what would be a more appropriate date and why?
I support the following statement from Camcycle. Planning to 2040 is all very well, but the next 5-10 years are going to be crucial so decisive action must begin immediately. If dates are too far in the future, it can become easy to defer decisions or much-needed change. "Given that a climate emergency has been declared by both the South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridge City Council we urge them to take swift action to transition the Cambridge region to sustainable transport including cycling. Local Plan strategies for cycling and public transportation (which include understanding where and how new developments should be located and designed) must assume a radical shift away from cars well before 2040."
No uploaded files for public display
Surely with the climate emergency we should be planning for a much earlier date than 2040. Vital to give green transport methods immediate priority
No uploaded files for public display
Whilst we neither agree nor disagree with the proposed plan period to 2040, we are in agreement with the Councils that it is imperative there is flexibility with the strategy to ensure a balance is struck “between planning far enough ahead to make informed decisions about growth and the reliability of long-term future predictions for housing and jobs”. We therefore suggest a date for a review of the Plan is incorporated to ensure it is delivering what is required and is able to respond to changing circumstances.
No uploaded files for public display
Planning for a 20 year period time scale allows for recognition and appreciation of some of the longer term strategic issues facing the region. However, being able to create certainty beyond the 15 year time period on issues such like housing is more challenging and difficult. Technology will also change immensely over this period so we cannot be certain that the mobility solution for today will be suitable in 20 years’ time. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that strategic policies should be prepared over a minimum 15 year period and a local planning authority should be planning for the full plan period. This is particularly relevant to the Greater Cambridge area where major improvements in infrastructure are likely to happen in that period and there is a need to anticipate and respond to them. Grosvenor and USS broadly agree that this plan period is an appropriate response to the Government’s guidance on meeting housing needs. Even though a plan period to 2040 is supported, the importance of regular reviews at least every five years in accordance with paragraph 33 of the Framework should be adhered to. Such reviews will be important in ensuring that the Plan remains relevant to local circumstances and able to effectively guide the long-term growth and development of the Greater Cambridge area. We note that the above plan period is based on adoption of the Local Plan in 2023, and would suggest that the plan period is reviewed if the timeframe for the preparation of the Local Plan Review were to slip.
No uploaded files for public display
The planning process needs to include truly long term scenarios such as 50 years ahead, mid term scenarios such as 25 years ahead, and very detailed 10 to 15 year plans. There is no context in these documents for what Greater Cambridge might be like in 50 years and no context to judge what is hoped for from the Local Plan. It is already clear that planning in both the City and South Cambs is not fit-for-purpose and produces low quality development and does not address the quality of life issues of an area focussed on the City with a population of 290,000. There is no vision. Given that the NPPF is patently flawed and inadequate, Greater Cambridge needs to do better.
No uploaded files for public display
Given that scientists are alarmed that 'climate events' are accelerating, we need to be concentrating on having transition plans in place for Net Zero Carbon by 2030. As with all large projects of recent times, there is usually an enormous overspend and overshoot of completion date, so aiming for 2030 and completion by 2035 is what I strongly advocate. These transition plans will affect every aspect of our social and economic life, and the climate should be the guiding issue here not economic growth under the usual paradigm. Our primary focus should be transitioning, and any developmental economic plans for increasing prosperity need to support this; the environment and climate should not be factors much lower down the list of what is to be taken into consideration as if they are add-ons. Equally issues of distribution, of equity, should be built in right at the beginning. The economic expansion in the last few decades, of science parks and migration of tech corporation into the city has been accompanied (responsible for?) a growth in inequality and pollution. Our records on these two scores should shame us into doing something drastically different, not more of the same. Tech corporations should be encouraged to contribute on a massive scale to the process of transitioning, helping to solve the local problems as well as the national and international ones, thus contributing to the prestige of Cambridge as a world class leader. I would like the Council to be hosting public events so that the business interests in Cambridge can be seen to be forging ahead with transitioning and helping raising community awareness for the need to do this in the process. So the government targets for population and job growth in the arcs should be revisited; a different set of questions need to be raised, not predictions based on economic growth models of the C20th. The first is .....what needs to be done to get to Zero Carbon by 2030? What work/jobs will deliver this goal? What new businesses are needed to progress this? What can established businesses and university departments do to expedite this? What are the infrastructure requirements for transitioning and where will they come form? HOw much retrofitting can be achieved to avoid building 'better' homes? How does water limit the growth, as concrete is water hungry? W\hat is our water security plan? What do we need to retain as agricultural land for food security? These are iterative questions. We will need to move away from monoculture, fertiliser based agriculture to develop garden forests and permaculture food growing urban areas. Land use is dependent on natural resources. We have hardly enough for the given population, more building will use precious aquifer water that is already dangerously low. I really question the government targets - how feasible are they given everything I've just written? Would not some of the new developments we need be better spread throughout the country?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I agree that planning long term is essential. We need a vision for 2040 and interim operational and milestones for 2025, 2030 and 2035. Cambridge must become an effective and exemplary “Sustainable City” as soon as possible. 4 Priorities are crucial. 1. Invest urgently in effective and sustainable public transport delivering significant improvements by 2023 – 2025. 2. Invest in maintaining existing semi natural wildlife habitats in the City and farmed areas; restore and recreate a network of ecologically connected wildlife areas ; restore ecosystem functionality , resilience and ecosystem services of our land, rivers and wetlands and prevent deterioration; restore biodiversity , especially butterflies, moths, wild bees and other pollinators and their services 3. Abolish homelessness and reduce deprivation 4. Make Cambridge a net zero carbon (and methane) emitter as soon as possible and at the latest by 2030; and invest in carbon sinks.
No uploaded files for public display
You must take urgent action to enable residents to reduce their climate impact. One of the best ways to do this is to reduce car traffic and encourage cycling as well as improving building standards. This should be done in existing developments as well as future developments. No future development should be allowed unless it is carbon neutral. Only minimal car parking for those who absolutely need it should be allowed. These policies should already be in place. This document is not bold enough for the level of change we need by 2040.
No uploaded files for public display
This is far too long. Many key factors are or will move quickly or profoundly, such as the economy post Brexit and climate change. The plan needs to be adaptable in the light of these changes. We often hear that ‘Plans are out of date‘ - lets not build this problem in from the outset.
No uploaded files for public display
The adopted 2018 Local Plans for the City and South Cambridgeshire cover the period from 2011 to 2031 and incorporate important strategic policy directions for growth particularly in the large scale developments such as Northstowe, north of Waterbeach and the new village at Bourn Airfield. The nature of such development will mean that their delivery times will extend beyond the current plan period set out in these Local Plans. It necessarily follows that any new plan for the Greater Cambridge area (incorporating both the City Council and South Cambridgeshire’s administrative areas) should continue to support such development plan commitments which also ensuring that the appropriate policy measures are put in place to address any new growth targets for housing and employment applicable to the area. Such a policy framework will necessarily have to reflect the growing climate change agenda and the priorities for the Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate a sustainable and deliverable approach to development and planning control over the plan period. Whilst it is noted that the proposed plan period is only up to 2040, it is the case that the Combined Authorities timescale for their non-spatial strategy is 2050. Whilst we acknowledge that there is some merit in aligning the two plan periods (i.e. the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the Non-Spatial Strategy) it is our view that a 30 year timescale is covering an extremely long period of time where policies, processes and politics as well as many other national and international factors will affect any planning strategy. It is certainly the case that even with the 2018 Local Plans that have been adopted, these now appear out of step with other emerging planning policies consequently having a longer plan period up to 2050 would potentially magnify those issues. Accordingly we have suggested that a plan period up to 2040 is appropriate and which would carry through existing large scale strategic commitments whilst ensuring a new policy framework and proposal are put in place to address all of the salient planning matters.
No uploaded files for public display
• Given that a climate emergency has been declared by both the South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridge City Council we urge them to take swift action to transition the Cambridge region to sustainable transport including cycling. • Local Plan strategies for cycling and public transportation (which include understanding where and how new developments should be located and designed) must assume a radical shift away from cars well before 2040.
No uploaded files for public display
Forward planning is difficult; linear extrapolation to 2040 is too long, yet the timescale needs to be longer and the plan needs to be robust in the face of unexpected pressures. Climate change may be with us, but we are already learning that many of the predictions are misleading, both in terms of likely progression and society’s ability to counter the threats. A global pandemic could be next, whether a viral consequence of poor food hygiene in a faraway place, or bacterial diseases rendered untreatable as a result of acquired resistance – even here man’s technological ingenuity is already finding potential solutions. I don’t see any realistic assessment of threats along each of the PESTLE axes, any one of which could destroy any linear “business as usual” thinking, especially in our panicky work of fake news. 2050 would be better (a generation) but needs scenario-based approach.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, 2040 is appropriate, especially regarding the impact of climate change.
No uploaded files for public display
• Given that a climate emergency has been declared by both the South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridge City Council we urge them to take swift action to transition the Cambridge region to sustainable transport including cycling. • Local Plan strategies for cycling and public transportation (which include understanding where and how new developments should be located and designed) must assume a radical shift away from cars well before 2040.
No uploaded files for public display
I think this is a long period which is obviously necessary for certain planning but within this 20 years there needs to be shorter and medium plans and things change eg new technologies
No uploaded files for public display
This date is too far into the future – reflecting our poor ability to deliver in a timely fashion – in particular infrastructure. Plans should be accelerated for public transport improvements (e.g. Cam Metro or alternative area wide rapid transit, Cambridge South Station etc), so housing can be delivered sooner.
No uploaded files for public display
Given the Climate Emergency, 2040 is too far in the future. Right now, there is an urgent need for bold, effective Planning policies on standards of building insulation, heating/cooling, retention of front and rear domestic gardens, green spaces promoting biodiversity etc. Could there not be an interim set of policies, aimed at being adopted within a much shorter time? Perhaps a Citizen’s Assembly could be convened on this topic and some practical steps agreed in the much shorter term.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, it seems realistic (given how long the South Cambs plan took)
No uploaded files for public display
• Given that a climate emergency has been declared by both the South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridge City Council we urge them to take swift action to transition the Cambridge region to sustainable transport including cycling. • Local Plan strategies for cycling and public transportation (which include understanding where and how new developments should be located and designed) must assume a radical shift away from cars well before 2040.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes we agree that 2040 is an appropriate date.
No uploaded files for public display
Priorities are crucial. 1. Invest urgently in effective and sustainable public transport delivering significant improvements by 2023 – 2025. 2. Invest in maintaining existing semi natural wildlife habitats in the City and farmed areas; restore and recreate a network of ecologically connected wildlife areas ; restore ecosystem functionality , resilience and ecosystem services of our land, rivers and wetlands and prevent deterioration; restore biodiversity , especially butterflies, moths, wild bees and other pollinators and their services 3. Abolish homelessness and reduce deprivation; ensure economic development is spread across Cambridgeshire and not simply clustered on Cambridge city. 4. Make Cambridge a net zero carbon (and methane) emitter as soon as possible and at the latest by 2030; and invest in carbon sinks.
No uploaded files for public display
Priorities are crucial. 1. Invest urgently in effective and sustainable public transport delivering significant improvements by 2023 – 2025. 2. Invest in maintaining existing semi natural wildlife habitats in the City and farmed areas; restore and recreate a network of ecologically connected wildlife areas ; restore ecosystem functionality , resilience and ecosystem services of our land, rivers and wetlands and prevent deterioration; restore biodiversity , especially butterflies, moths, wild bees and other pollinators and their services 3. Abolish homelessness and reduce deprivation 4. Make Cambridge a net zero carbon (and methane) emitter as soon as possible and at the latest by 2030; and invest in carbon sinks.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes – whatever date you take is arbitrary but seems sensible enough.
No uploaded files for public display
The NPPF (2019) states that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption (paragraph 22). The NPPF also distinguishes between ‘strategic’ and ‘local’ policies. In doing so it confirms, at paragraph 20, that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for housing; employment; retail and leisure; infrastructure; community facilities and conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment. In the interests of a comprehensive, sustainable and long term approach to plan-making (supported by the plan led system) there are compelling reasons to extend the GCLP Plan period to 2050; to align with the growth period envisaged by the Oxford-Cambridge Arc; and to secure a step change in infrastructure delivery. The NPPF (paragraph 33) requires policies in local plans to be reviewed at least once every five years to assess whether they need updating. An important component of the review process is to consider changing circumstances affecting the area, or any relevant changes in national policy. In the interests of keeping the plan up to date, the review process should be proportionate, and focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The authorities should not rely on the five-year plan review to deliver the fundamental strategic objectives of the Arc in the period to 2050. This principal issue should be addressed and examined fully now as part of a comprehensive process to facilitate the necessary step change in long-term strategic planning that will help to transform the way in which Greater Cambridge functions and secure a long-terms sustainable development strategy for the sub-region. Regarding the Local Plan start date, the PPG makes clear that strategic plan-making authorities will need to calculate their local housing need figure at the start of the plan-making process. This Issues and Options consultation marks the beginning of the Local Plan process and thus it follows that the plan period should also start in 2020.
No uploaded files for public display
The proposed Local Plan period up to 2040 is considered appropriate and to accord with the requirements set out within the NPPF for local authorities to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites between years 1-15 of the plan (Para 67).
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that 2040 is an appropriate date to plan for. Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Plans and strategic policies to plan for a minimum period of 15 years from the date of adoption of the Local Plan. 3.2 Figure 5 of the Issues and Options document outlines the Councils ambition to adopt the new Joint Local Plan (JLP) in Summer 2023. From this estimate the Plan would need to cover up to 2038 as a minimum. Given that the Plan is proposed to run to 2040 there is some flexibility to allow for any delays in the plan preparation process. 3.3 Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that the Council retains a flexible stance on the potential Plan period until later stages of the plan preparation process sufficient to allow for any future delays. This recommendation is based on the previous experience of South Cambridgeshire District Council, whereby it took six years for the Local Plan to move through the process from the Issues and Options stage through to formal Adoption.
No uploaded files for public display
Agree - The proposed Local Plan period up to 2040 is considered appropriate and to accord with the requirements set out within the NPPF for local authorities to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites between years 1-15 of the plan (paragraph 67).
No uploaded files for public display
Southern and Regional Developments(Joscelyn) agree that planning to 2040 is an appropriate timescale for the plan. The NPPF states that plans should look ahead for at least 15 years from the point of adoption, which suggests that 2040 is an appropriate end date and covers the minimum time frame. The timescale of any plan should however also respond to long-term requirements and opportunities including major improvements to infrastructure It is imperative for the Council to deliver sufficient housing to cover this extended plan period and address future needs in full. As such, the emerging plan must also seek to plan for needs and strategic growth beyond this proposed plan period so that a sustainable strategic approach is adopted that has longevity. This is demonstrated by the strategic plan for the Great Cambridge areas that is considering infrastructure delivery up to 2050. As such the emerging plan must consider the requirements over this period and plan positively to address the associated strategic requirements, even if the plan will be reviewed in full at 2040. The ability for the plan to adopt the timescale to 2040, whilst addressing strategic requirement up to 2050 must mean that the plan's approach should be aspirational and not be constrained by the time period it adopts. Major infrastructure projects that will provide for long term requirements have already been identified at the New Towns of Northstowe and Waterbeach. Whilst the value of strategic sites such as these is identified within NPPF, Paragraph 72 emphasises that realistic lead-in times must be incorporated into a spatial strategy to ensure that the delivery of these sites remains practical in realising the housing trajectory. As such the importance of small and medium sites are identified in Paragraph 68 of NPPF as these sites can robustly contribute to housing numbers given the relatively rapid build out times. The expansion of Development Frameworks of sustainable villages such as Swavesey must be recognised as a method of delivering a boost of housing that would contribute toward sustaining the housing trajectory. The promoted site at Kingfisher Way, Cottenham can demonstrate this important contribution to assist in meeting the demanding housing needs for Greater Cambridge. Summary of Comments: 2040 is an appropriate date in future to plan for however the Council needs to ensure it delivers sufficient housing to cover this period.
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that 2040 is an appropriate date to plan for in light of the economic growth considerations in the CPIER report.
No uploaded files for public display