Question 17. How do you think our plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals?

have panels of disabled people who can set access criteria that have to be followed by devolpers

Primarily by investing in clear public presentation of options and consequences

No specific comments. Existing arrangements appear to work satisfactorily.

By public engagement on development proposals.

Continue to support and encourage Neighbourhood Planning thus enabling local communities to have real legislative power in shaping their development.

give more power to communities - community asset transfer, ownership and management of land/buildings, not just infrequent consultations

No specific comments. Existing arrangements appear to work satisfactorily.

Create a public but closed BIG skatepark (just for members who follow the civic and "how to use" rules). So it can be managed by people from the comunity, or just opened with a card access for all the registered members, providing a good area for socialise, make sport and promote community lifestyle. It needs to be big enough to fit all the children and begineers as well as the amateurs or professionals. With just a big one in a centric place (Jesus Green for example) will be enough for everyone. Important to be covered (by the rain) and lights on the night, as a lot of people can not skate during the day because of school or work.

Effective engagement of local communities right from the outset. By the time plans for a development or building (e.g. new school) have been published this can be too late for the community to have a real influence (this does happen but only with highly enabled local people pushing and pushing to get the change they need- this is not good enough)- we need better means in getting that community engagement as plans are being drawn up. For some developments- this engagement might not just be about engaging the community currently living adjacent to the site, but also about who is going to live there. If it is going to be a mixed site, for example, targeted at people who will take up social housing, then there needs to be a way of engaging these people about the services they need....and this might not be the same people living in that place currently who will be thinking mainly about negating the impacts on them... For those impacted by a development though- I think there should be better analysis of who will be impacted and whether they can be compensated in any way...which would improve community engagement with a project in the first place. Taking, for example, the proposed Buxhall Farm site in Histon..there are issues there for local residents with flooding, exacerbated by them not being on mains sewers. It seems crazy that this was not done for them when the school was built, so surely this is something that should be properly considered if/when that land is developed as a means of genuinely helping to address negative impacts on an adjacent community.

We note the joint councils’ team is running a series of roadshow events and the “Big Debate” and consider these are important to run alongside the more formal process for Local Plan preparation. The College supports this approach. As the Local Plan evolves to more specific policies and site allocations, promoters of major development should adopt a partnership approach and engage with local communities and stakeholders through initial visioning and the master-planning process as well as the formal planning application process. The College has adopted this approach for its emerging proposal at Duxford.

Oh put-leez.... if you wanted that, you wouldn’t have spent the last decades ignoring us.

5.19 The community at all levels should be encouraged to engage in the development process to help shape new proposals. Policies and procedures should encourage meaningful consultation and require Parish Councils to engage with developers in advance of planning applications being submitted. Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant).

Pigeon consider that there needs to be a balanced approach to ensure that everyone can be involved but that individuals or narrow interest groups should not be enabled to have disproportionate influence on outcomes. The Statements of Community Involvement of the two Councils set out a clear basis for positive engagement and should be consolidated into a single, shared statement to reflect the integrated nature of the two Councils approach to both Plan Making and Development Management.

It is anticipated that strategic allocations would be subject to detailed community involvement at supplementary guidance, pre-application, outline application and detailed design stages. It is both normal and good practice to undertake community engagement for large scale developments, and this should continue. The consortium behind the proposals at South West Cambridge would expect to fully consult on their emerging proposals.

Certainly in my village it is felt that our views, no matter how strong, will be overridden in favour of development. I feel that there is little accountability for this. I would like residents views to be given far greater weight, rather than it just appearing to the consultation for the sake of it. The busway from Cambourne to Cambridge is a prime example.

1. Parish councils (and residents) often feel that their comments are ignored. This may be due in part to pressure from central government to meet arbitrary targets, as well as demand for housing, especially 'affordable'. More involvement from officers at local level might help communication. 2. Most larger developments make extensive use of CAD designs. Opening these up to residents might make it much easier for them to comment.

Local assemblies, particularly wherev development is planned

Listen to residents more, businesses less

Attempts by neighbouring Parishes to shape the expansion of the Wellcome Genome Campus were overridden by Officials and District Councillors. Unless the GCP is prepared to side with local opinion on major planning proposals there appears to be little prospect of shaping them via the Local Plan

• Camcycle has extensive experience of working with the planning system and we know that it is incredibly difficult for people to engage with and respond to planning applications and consultations. • If the Local Plan is to encourage more community participation then the systems used must be improved. • Simple things like determining the closure date of consultations or which document should be looked at for a summary of the planning application are too difficult with the current system let alone having sensible approaches to engagement. • Seeing the difference in quality and liveability of development of Marmalade Lane vs most other developments in the Cambridge region shows just how much more liveable and sustainable our developments can be when the community and the people who will live in the developments are involved in the design. • Out of town developers, concerned with profit above all else, frequently underestimate the needs of people who cycling, the number of people who will cycle and the extent of provision of cycling facilities. • Ensuring local people can contribute to these consultations and taking the contributions of organisations like Camcycle seriously can prevent the issues that arise from underprovision. Stronger planning policies developed with extensive community consultation will also help with these issues.

Giving communities a voice in shaping the local plan, including consultations such as this. Listening to and taking on board what local communities are saying in response to plans. Helping to promote the neighbourhood plan scheme where local groups can shape what happens in their immediate area.

So set up citizens' or residents' assemblies. They should be in the plan.

More weight should be given to Village Design statements in the policies about design and character. Parish Councils should have a stronger voice in the Planning process about the design and character of new building through the Village Design statements carrying greater weight.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association is concerned that the emphasis in the text is very focused on the next round of developments, but the issues are not just about the next new communities, they are also about those that have already had growth. In Trumpington, we have had plans for major developments since 2006 and rapid growth since 2011, with the population expected to increase from 6000 to 17,000 by the end of the development projects in 2022. The process has worked well, with community involvement through our Association and the structures put in place by the Council, but there should have been a larger-scale and longer-term commitment by developers and the Councils to support the enlarged community. Many residents have only moved into the area in the last few years and there are still around 200 homes to complete on Clay Farm and 200 on Trumpington Meadows, yet the support structures have already been reduced, e.g. the closure of the Community Forum in 2019, the scaling back of support such as the Community Development Working Group in 2019, the reduced long-term investment in community and youth services and public transport support from 2020, as the developer funding comes to an end. The funding should have lasted much longer and the Councils should be doing more to step in to provide continuity. There needs to be a long-term commitment to these expanding communities. When the Southern Fringe developments were being planned, the Councils and residents tried to benefit from previous experience in developments such as Orchard Park and we suggest there is a case now for a similar process while the next new communities are planned.

• New developments must not be entirely developer initiated and led. Pre-application engagement requirements must involve representatives from planning officers, SCDC councillors, the Parish Council, and, importantly, other relevant local organisations and individuals. Conceptual/feasibility schemes only (possibly with options) are required at this early stage to allow local knowledge and requirements to inform the development of any scheme design. The resulting ‘brief’ will then be the basis for more detailed design. • Inflated prices paid for a site by developers should not dictate the development design and content. Any Village Design Guide and Neighbourhood Plan must also be the primary sources in the writing of the brief – the authors of these documents should be involved. Developers must understand that their plans need to fully respond to these documents, and not just pay ‘lip-service’ to them. Policies must afford sufficient weight to design guides and neighbourhood plans, such that applications which do not fully conform can be turned down without risk of a successful appeal. • Our experience in Fulbourn shows that so-called ‘consultations’ initiated by the developer are often little more than ‘box-ticking’ exercises. Fully worked-up and detailed plans, sections, and elevations and other associated documents are presented, and it is clear that there is little room for local input to change the proposals. This leaves a sense of frustration and scepticism about the role of the planning regime to connect with and help protect the community from possibly ill-formed and inappropriate development. The local people have a wealth of knowledge about their area that developers cannot, or sometimes do not want to know. • A developer has months, even years, to produce their detailed proposals. The community is given just 21 days to respond to what may be a complex scheme, involving many drawings, and possible hundreds of pages of planning jargon and technical detail. This is not a democratic, level playing field, so early community involvement at feasibility stage could go some way towards resetting the balance.

Attempts by neighbouring Parishes to shape the expansion of the Wellcome Genome Campus were overridden by Officials and District Councillors. Unless the GCP is prepared to side with local opinion on major planning proposals there appears to be little prospect of shaping them via the Local Plan.

I repeat, randomly selected juries that receive solid education on the issue. Then there will be a balance of current resident NIMBYs and potential future residents who need somewhere to live

Why get involved if similar pleas failed to lead to results last time ? New Cambridge Local Plan under Glen Richardson asks for residents to get involved. 2007: Residents Group (EMRAG - East Mill Road Action Group)) formed; Survey asks for housing & Open Space on site of Garage & Robert Sayle Carpet Warehouse, mill Rd. Council & residents create dEvelopment Brief. 2015: Council say 'No' to student flats 2019: Student flats built Residents worn out 2020: New Local Plan asks for residents to get involved....New Head of planning, Glen Richarson disapeared

The council planners should have the upper hand/legal rights to force changes in development planning with developers, so you lead the way not their profits.

It's important to use new ways to engage with communities and to go right into those communities rather than waiting for them to engage with you. For example, the Commonplace platform (www.commonplace.is) has good reviews and boasts that 70% of respondents are under 45. The work Kettle's Yard has done in North Cambridge has also been successful at getting right into the community and working closely with them in their community spaces.