Question 21. How should the Local Plan protect our heritage and ensure new development is well-designed?

[This is two separate questions. “Ensuring new development is well designed” is Q23: our response to Q21 focuses on the heritage issue and the impact of new development on the heritage] • an Historic Environment Strategy must be prepared before extensive additional development is approved. It should be a key document in Cambridge’s future. In our view, a major failing of the 2018 Cambridge Local Plan was the lack of an Historic Environmental Strategy, despite the fact that Paragraph 185 of the NPPF requires LPAs to prepare such a document. For a city like Cambridge, with a world-renowned historic core and at the same time one of the fastest growth rates in the UK, not to have an Historic Environmental Strategy would seem irresponsible. The strategy should also seize the unprecedented opportunity, in considering Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, of considering the historic city of Cambridge in conjunction with its wider historic and cultural landscape setting. The 2018 Local Plan’s collection of related planning documents that touch tangentially on the historic heritage is not an adequate substitute for a properly structured and comprehensive Strategy. based on a thorough understanding of significance and issues. First steps in preparing such a strategy include preparation of a baseline city-wide assessment of current issues, building on those identified in Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. Conservation Area Appraisals should be explicitly and individually included in the evidence base for the Local Plan. • Fig 17 “Greater Cambridge’s heritage and design successes” is wrongly captioned and misleading in relation to the heritage. The numbers of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are the number of designations: as such, they are an indication of the quality of the historic environment, but NOT of “successes”. This diagram provides no meaningful indication of current issues affecting the heritage, of the successes or failures of current and past policies in managing it. We feel that the text is complacent in relation to the pressures on the existing heritage and its capacity to accommodate change on the scale being contemplated. • With its rapid growth, the old medieval city centre with its narrow streets and cramped buildings is poorly adapted to the demands of today with the massive footfall, international tourism, and congested traffic. The threats to the heritage need to be identified as soon as possible, as a key part of baseline evidence for the Plan, and assessing capacity for change. Adequate measures need to be developed to mitigate the cumulative effects of change, in conjunction with the Local Plan process, and implemented before further growth is approved. In this context, what has happened to the Historic Conservation Area Management Plan, included in the 2006 Historic Core Appraisal but omitted from the 2016 revision? We feel that this vital Management Plan should have been prepared and put into effect before the recent consultation on “Making Space for People”. NPPF Para 185 states that Local Plans should include ‘a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In Cambridge’s case, not only are individual buildings at risk (the former Mill Road Library) but the historic city, its skyline and its setting are seriously threatened by the quantum of growth being contemplated and the cumulative impacts of new development. • Greater protection should be given to Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Buildings of Local Interest, and other non-designated heritage assets. This is especially critical for nondesignated heritage assets – all too often planners have little idea of the impact on the historic environment of their planning decisions, greater consideration must be given to the advice from their own conservation officers. • In an historic city like Cambridge, Conservation Areas should be given greater respect in urban planning. Protection should be given not just to buildings Listed by English Heritage but also to buildings characteristic of the local vernacular and Buildings of Local Interest (BLIs). The priority for such buildings should be restoration rather than demolition, which should be allowed only when there is a clear and manifest gain to the public and not just the developer. Both Councils are at fault in not maintaining an up-to-date listing of their BLIs and not carrying out Conservation Area Appraisals. • CambridgePPF has been working with the City Council for several years using volunteers to assist the Council in carrying out some of this conservation work. We believe that there is scope for local communities to play more of a role in identifying the buildings and heritage assets that they would like to see protected in their community. These will not always be designated assets such as Conservation Areas or listed-buildings but rather buildings, streets, views or green spaces that provide character. We would like to see a policy within the new plan that enables communities to identify such heritage assets and for these “designated community heritage assets” to be a material consideration in the planning process. Local communities should be supported to identify such assets if they produce a Neighbourhood Plan. • The role and status pf the Design & Conservation Panel and Cambridgeshire Quality Panel should be strengthened. As a member of the Cambridge Design & Conservation Panel, we have seen how effective this can be at helping developers to significantly improve their schemes in relation to their impact on heritage. We would like to see this operating across both Council areas and more developments going before the Panels. Could it be made compulsory for all large developments that could have an impact on heritage to go before the Panel? • Through the preparation of Design Guides or Neighbourhood Plans – these should be the mechanism to minimise the negative impact of new developments on heritage assets. Such documents need to be given sufficient weight in the Local Plan so that applications can be refused if they are not compliant. • Both Councils should make a long-term commitment to support their conservation teams so they are adequately resourced to carry out their work, in particular to monitor the threats to heritage assets and to enforce what limited protection measures are already available. • We would like to see both Councils appoint Heritage Champions (refer to Historic England’s Heritage Champions Handbook, 2016 and updated HE Heritage Champions support and guidance dated 12-11-2019). SCDC appears not to have a list of ‘local heritage assets’. A list of these or Buildings of Local Interest (BLIs) should be set-up, and local communities should be encouraged to put forward their heritage assets or BLIs in accordance with Historic England Advice Note 7.

Steeple Morden has a build Conservation Area. However it does not have a designation report and therefore is vulnerable to challenge. The District Council should provide the expertise to refresh this designation. The potential to extend the designation to cover the Odsey railway area should be pursued.

Enforced design codes. A presumption that developments must improve the overall quality of the built environment. Work collaboratively at all levels of planning decision-makers to ensure feedback is fully understood.

• For villages, the first level of protection must be through the preparation of Village Design guides and Neighbourhood Plans, which must be given full weight as SPDs (supplementary planning documents). • As well as greater protection for Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings, support needs to be given to local communities to identify Buildings of Local Interest, non-designated heritage assets, and other buildings, streets, views, and green spaces that provide character. If the necessary detail cannot, or has not been fully covered in any VDG or NP, then a separate document might usefully be prepared that can also be given full SPD status.

Cambridgeshire already has a great track record in delivering well-designed new neighbourhoods. Emerging guidance in the form of the national design guide and updates to the PPG has re-enforced this process, and the implications of the work carried out by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission will inform revisions to the NPPF. The Greater Cambridge authority will need to ensure that resources are in place to ensure that proposals that come forwards are well considered, maximising the benefits that new development can bring, including those delivered by high quality design that relate to all aspects of health, social inclusion and wellbeing.

It is a vital tool in preserving the unique character of Greater Cambridge. It should ensure that an areas appearance and vistas are maintained. Don’t just pay lip service to the concept of ‘well designed’ new buildings. Too many bland and uninspiring buildings are accepted; have higher understood standards/

A positive strategy for the Historic Environment Paragraph 185 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the environment. A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic environment. A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the area. Strategic policy for the historic environment Strategic policies are a very important part of the plan, particularly given the need for Neighbourhood Plans to be in conformity with these policies. Paragraph 20 of the NPPF makes it clear that Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision, amongst other things, the conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Paragraph 21 requires that Plans make explicit which policies are strategic policies. Therefore we would strongly advise the inclusion of a strategic policy that addresses these matters. Policies for Heritage Assets The Plan should include policies for both designated (listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered parks and gardens, Scheduled Monuments) and non-designated heritage assets. These policies need to be consistent with national policy and legislation and attach the appropriate tests dependent on the level of harm and asset type, although not repeat the NPPF verbatim. Policies should be locally specific wherever possible. More detail is given in relation to each asset type below. Listed Buildings Listed buildings include a variety of structures reflecting the areas architectural, industrial and cultural heritage. We will look for policies that carefully consider the preservation and preferably enhancement of these assets and crucially, of their setting. In some instances, a full consideration of setting may require close co-operation with adjoining districts where landscape setting may fall within the boundary of these neighbouring authorities. Where relevant, we will seek evidence of this crossboundary co-operation in the evidence base. We also encourage a policy that addresses the potential listing over the plan period of as yet unidentified heritage assets that further demonstrate the development and activity of the town and its inhabitants. Conservation Areas Each local authority contains a number of designated Conservation Areas. We encourage that the local plan process provides a basis for the continued update and management of Conservation Management Plans, identifying each conservation area’s local identity and distinctiveness. These should identify features that typify and contribute to this special distinctiveness as well as allow for less tangible judgments of character, quality of place and special distinctiveness. The plan will be more robust where it directs future development to take account of the special and distinctive character of Conservation Areas, emphasising that this is a cumulative result of built form, materials, spaces and street patterns, uses and relationships to surrounding features such as the surviving historic buildings and street patterns. We would also welcome provision for any future designation of conservation areas within cities, districts and boroughs as well as specific provision for the landscape setting of different parts of the area. Registered Parks and Gardens It may be appropriate to specifically identify Registered Parks and Gardens as protected by any such policy. The policy should anticipate and protect any future designations. Scheduled Monuments and other Archaeology We welcome specific provision for the protection and enhancement of archaeology as well as emphasis that sites of archaeological importance can occur everywhere. We encourage clear guidance on expectations for archaeological recording and the submission of records with an appropriate public record (e.g.: Historic Environment Records) for archaeological remains that are not to be retained in situ. Where suggested sites are located in areas of known archaeological potential, weight should be given to this as a consideration in site selection and the comparison with alternate locations. We encourage close liaison with the County Archaeologist at site allocation stage. Policies should make provision for non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets (footnote 63 of the NPPF). Non-designated Heritage Assets In national policy terms, ‘non-designated heritage assets’ (including those on a local list) are recognised as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions on applications affecting such assets will require a balanced judgment that has regard to the significance of the asset and any harm or loss: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainabledevelopment/delivering-sustainable-development/12-conserving-and-enhancing-thehistoric-environment/ Government guidance recognises that local lists and local criteria for identifying nondesignated heritage assets are a positive thing and can help with decision-making: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/conserving-andenhancing-the-historic-environment/what-are-non-designated-heritage-assets-andhow-important-are-they/ We would recommend that as a minimum a local authority has established criteria for identifying non-designated heritage assets, and ideally has a local list of assets linked to planning policies in their Local Plan. A good example is Peterborough: http://www2.peterborough.gov.uk/environment/listed_buildings/locally_listed_building s.aspx There are enough appeal cases to indicate that inspectors regard non-designated heritage assets, and something on a local list, as an important material consideration in planning decisions. In fact, where there isn’t a local list, some inspectors have been unable to give as much weight to a non-designated heritage asset. Our website contains a number of appeal cases and if you search for ‘locally listed heritage asset’ or ‘non-designated heritage asset’, you will get relevant ones: http://www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/planning-cases/ Robust provision for these heritage assets will increase the soundness of your forthcoming plan. Heritage at Risk We recommend the inclusion of a policy basis to address Heritage at Risk. We also recommend the creation and management of a local Heritage at Risk register for Grade II listed buildings. Similarly, we welcome positive local solutions for addressing all heritage at risk, whether nationally or locally identified. The National Heritage at Risk Register can be found and searched here by local authority: www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk Historic England has published guidance pertaining to Local Listing which you may find helpful: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/local-heritagelisting-advice-note-7/ Landscape/Townscape/Historic Landscape Characterisation The Plan should also include policies covering the landscape and townscape including the setting of the city and historic landscape characterisation (we recommend that further work may be needed in this area to ensure a robust evidence base for the Local Plan – see our comments on the evidence base section). Historic Shop Fronts High streets and retail in general are under considerable pressure at the present time. The Local Plan should seek opportunities to support High Streets and enhance the historic environment of these areas. The retention of original/historic or significant shop fronts elements is often integral to the character of these buildings and that of the wider street scene. The Local Plan should highlight the importance of retaining or restoring historic shop front features. This is both in terms of the positive contribution historic shop fronts make to the character of an area, but also the economic benefit of providing traditional and bespoke shopping units to shop owners. A good example of how historic shop fronts can positively contribute to an area both aesthetically and economically is where Derby City Council teamed up with English Heritage (now Historic England) to help restore an area of Victorian and Edwardian shops, the Strand. The restoration of a number of shops within the area has meant that a previously underused section of the city provides bespoke shopping, now sees a much larger footfall and is considered to be a national success. The council have also seen a ripple effect of surrounding properties being restored.

These are two questions wrongly conflated into one. Fig 17 “Greater Cambridge’s heritage and design successes” is wrongly captioned and grossly misleading in relation to the heritage. The numbers of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are the number of designations: as such, they are an indication of the quality of the historic environment, but NOT of “successes”. Fig 17 provides no meaningful indication of current issues affecting the heritage, or of successes or failures of current and past policies in managing it. The text is inexcusably complacent in relation to the pressures on the existing heritage and its capacity to accommodate change on the scale being contemplated. A Historic Environment Strategy must be prepared as required by the NPPF para 185. The strategy should seize the unprecedented opportunity, in considering Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, of considering the historic city of Cambridge in conjunction with its wider historic and cultural landscape setting. The so-called Historic Environment Strategy in the 2018 Local Plan, made up of a rag-bag of existing policies with no strategic analysis (and agreed at the latest possible stage), is not a Strategy by any definition, certainly not one commensurate with the quality and challenges of a city of Cambridge’s international heritage significance. Vital first steps in preparing such a strategy include a baseline city-wide assessment of current issues, building on those identified in Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. Conservation Area Appraisals should be explicitly and individually included in the evidence base for the Local Plan. What has happened to the Historic Core Conservation Area Management Plan, included in the 2006 Historic Core Appraisal but omitted from the 2016 revision? This vital Management Plan should have been prepared and put into effect before the recent consultation on “Making Space for People”. With its rapid growth, the old medieval city centre with its narrow streets and cramped buildings is poorly adapted to the demands of today with the massive footfall, international tourism, and congested traffic. The threats to the heritage need to be identified NOW, as a key part of baseline research for the Plan, and assessing capacity for change. Adequate measures need to be developed to mitigate their cumulative effect, in conjunction with the Local Plan process, and implemented before further growth is approved. In this context, NPPF Para 185 states that Local Plans should include ‘a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats’. In Cambridge’s case, not only are individual buildings at risk (the former Mill Road Library) but the historic city, its skyline and its setting are seriously threatened by the quantum of growth being contemplated.

The relocation of the airport, and the scale of opportunity for development that this presents, brings the potential to integrate the area into the built and natural environment of Cambridge. The land is relatively free from constraints, including nearby heritage assets, and provides an outstanding opportunity not only to meet Cambridge's continuing housing and employment requirements, but to do so as part of a comprehensive, planned, world class development. Cambridge East represents an opportunity of unprecedented scale and strategic significance, and it is this scale of opportunity that enables growth that is integrated (rather than separated) and is complementary to the existing city centre and its related heritage.

Don’t build inappropriate buildings in inappropriate places. Ensure expert advice is independent and truly expert. Ensure more public participation in planning meetings by removing some of the sillier time limits on speaking that some councils operate

4.33 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185). 4.34 Greater Cambridge has a track record as a place where contemporary design and the historic environment co-exist in harmony. The site is located within the New Town and Glisson Road Common Conservation Area and 10 Station Road is identified as a ‘Building that is Important to the Character of the Conservation Area in the Character Appraisal (2012). As such the building is considered to be “non-designated heritage asset”. Permission has already been granted for the demolition and construction of a new office building on 15 January 2020 (15/2271/FUL) (originally submitted in 2015). The principle of demolishing the building has therefore already been found acceptable with a suitable design for the replacement building. The Site has the potential to deliver significant public benefits as referenced above and summarised in Section 2 of these representations which would outweigh any harm caused by the demolition of the unlisted building.

4.26 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185).

4.33 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185). 4.34 Greater Cambridge has a track record as a place where contemporary design and the historic environment co-exist in harmony. The site is within Fulbourn Conservation Area, however, there are no listed buildings on or near to the site. With the right design, including a suitable layout and design concept, the proposed development on the site could be accommodated without having a significant impact on the surrounding heritage context of the site. The consented care home that is due to be constructed adjacent to the site was found acceptable in heritage and design terms.

No response proposed.

4.30 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185).

Pigeon consider that, as a principle, and in order to address criterion d) in para 20 of the NPPF, the Plan evidence base should identify heritage areas and assets clearly and use their presence and values as part of the basis for site selection for development allocations. By focusing new development away from acknowledged heritage assets the best of our existing environment can be protected. Pigeon’s site at St Neots Road, Hardwick is located away from any existing heritage assets and its development would therefore avoid impact on any existing heritage assets. It is also able to ensure the achievement of high-quality design.

4.35 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185).

4.32 It is important to clearly identify what has heritage value and the reasons why. Any policies should be positively worded rather than restrictive.

4.31 It is important to clearly identify what has heritage value and the reasons why. Any policies should be positively worded rather than restrictive.

We commend the format of the CDF’s recent workshop as a mechanism for engaging the community with stakeholders and decision- makers; this will include presentations, but also small group discussions and open discussions with an independent moderator. The design workshop result was described in an article by our Chair, and this is attached to our accompanying email. One key process issue was to agree a design guide which is not overly prescriptive and not to produce highly duplicators or, worse, contradictory levels of prescription in the design guide and the planning conditions.

The historic centre of Cambridge and the Backs and Conservation Area of West Cambridge out to the Green Belt with its characteristic pattern of houses in individual gardens amid patchwork of playing fields is unique. The Local Plan needs to ensure that this is preserved, by severely limiting any development that would alter this character. To the extent any development were allowed it should be meet a higher standard of design, than in non Conservation Areas, and most importantly reflect the sense of place in its reduced mass and density, compared with the density etc. of development outside Conservation Areas.

4.32 The Site is located adjacent to but not within the Mill Road Conservation Area, which was allocated as a separate conservation area on 21 November 2018. There are no listed buildings on the site and the site comprises industrial uses. An important tree group is identified along the site’s western boundary and also along parts of the northern boundary. There is a row of ‘positive’ unlisted buildings along Devonshire Road to the west of the site. 4.33 Promoting car-free developments that are designed for pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars; encouraging a move towards more sustainable, healthy forms of transport, such as walking and cycling or using public transport. Car use should be restricted to local car clubs (preferably Electric Vehicles with charging points) and car sharing. 4.34 The proposed redevelopment of the site for a mixed use development would represent a more suitable land use than the current industrial uses on site. A commercial and residential development on the site would offer the opportunity to re-envisage the site’s layout and design and provide buildings that would be more suitable to the heritage context of the area. 4.35 Greater Cambridge has a track record as a place where contemporary design and the historic environment co-exist in harmony. There is a need for densification on such as the Travis Perkins site, to fully utilise brownfield land and maximise opportunities for sustainable development. The impact of the redevelopment proposals would need to be weighed in the balance of the public benefits arising from the proposed redevelopment. There are significant opportunities to maximise the sustainability of the site, providing energy efficient buildings that incorporate exemplar standards and maximising the site’s location to transport links to encourage the use of active modes of transport.

4.43 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185). 4.44 An Initial Heritage Assessment has been prepared in respect of Sites A, B and C and accompanies these representations. This has informed the emerging proposals for the site to ensure the significance of the Papworth Conservation Areas and nearby Listed Buildings is duly taken into account and inform the proposals. Further detail on this assessment and how it has informed the site design is included in Section 2 of these representations. 4.45 The enclosed illustrative masterplan has taken into account the context of the sites in order to suggest a layout that would sensitively respond to the context of the site. Parts of sites A and B are within flood zones 2 and 3, however, these areas are not needed for built development and would be retained as landscape buffer areas. A Conservation Area overlaps with Parcel A and development within this area would be designed to sensitively respond to the features and character of the area. Views have been identified for preservation to respond to the context of the Conservation Area.

We support the inclusion of the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth, the continued focus on tackling climate change, which poses a serious threat to public health, whilst safeguarding the historic places/lanscapes - which provide cultural & environmental opportunities that can support mental wellbeing. The Local Plan should include a policy which incorporates the ten Healthy New Town Principles.

4.35 Axis supports the need to protect and respond to the different landscape and townscape characters within Greater Cambridge. Axis believe that contemporary design and the historic environment can co-exist. Planning policies should therefore be flexible enough to allow for a design-led approach to bring forward innovative and creatively designed new spaces and places for both current and future generations to enjoy.

2.35 The Local Plan process will firstly seek to understand what development requirements it has over a certain period of time (which has been implied in the Consultation as needing to find sites for an additional c.30,000 homes between 2017 – 2040, together with a commensurate level of economic, leisure, community and retail development), and secondly, it will then seek to identify suitable sites that will satisfy sustainable development objectives. As part of the assessment process of a site’s suitability, consideration will be given to the ‘environmental’ aspect of sustainable development, of which heritage protection falls within. The Site in NEC provides an excellent opportunity for achieving significant levels of growth whilst protecting the iconic centre of Cambridge, and having due regard to the surrounding landscape character.

This can principally be achieved through the reduced use of polluting vehicles by: ● Locating development where there is good access to active travel, coupled with access to affordable, frequent, reliable and high-quality public transport options; ● Better cycle and pedestrian connectivity – achieved by developments directly and through a coordinated s106 infrastructure programme.

4.32 The Site is located adjacent to but not within the Mill Road Conservation Area, which was allocated as a separate conservation area on 21 November 2018. There are no listed buildings on the site and the site comprises industrial uses. An important tree group is identified along the site’s western boundary and also along parts of the northern boundary. There is a row of ‘positive’ unlisted buildings along Devonshire Road to the west of the site. 4.33 Promoting car-free developments that are designed for pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars; encouraging a move towards more sustainable, healthy forms of transport, such as walking and cycling or using public transport. Car use should be restricted to local car clubs (preferably Electric Vehicles with charging points) and car sharing. 4.34 The proposed redevelopment of the site for a mixed use development would represent a more suitable land use than the current industrial uses on site. A commercial and residential development on the site would offer the opportunity to re-envisage the site’s layout and design and provide buildings that would be more suitable to the heritage context of the area. 4.35 Greater Cambridge has a track record as a place where contemporary design and the historic environment co-exist in harmony. There is a need for densification on such as the Travis Perkins site, to fully utilise brownfield land and maximise opportunities for sustainable development. The impact of the redevelopment proposals would need to be weighed in the balance of the public benefits arising from the proposed redevelopment. There are significant opportunities to maximise the sustainability of the site, providing energy efficient buildings that incorporate exemplar standards and maximising the site’s location to transport links to encourage the use of active modes of transport.

4.30 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185).