Question 22. How do you think we should protect, enhance and adapt our historic buildings and landscapes?

See the response to question 21

Development proposals should consider their landscape and townscape impact on views across to and from the boundary of Greater Cambridge. Clear guidance on the value of setting and attention to views to and from designated and undesignated heritage assets should be included.

The removal and limitation of motorised traffic enables a new lease of life for historic buildings and special areas for the community. It can lead to a more vibrant and communal space that better supports local businesses and services. While concerns will be raised about the routing of redirected traffic, the main impact will be on reducing traffic levels. More consideration should be given in our village centres to short pedestrianised zones and deprioritisation of cars to pedestrians and cyclists.

Reduce pollution. Discourage car access, encourage access by walking/sustainable transport

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time.

Ensure that all ancient woodland in the area is mapped and recorded. The Ancient Woodland inventory held by Natural England generally only records ancient woodland over two hectares in size so smaller fragments of ancient woodland may not be recorded. It is also important to map and record ancient trees. The Woodland Trust has an inventory of ancient, veteran and notable trees, which is accessible through our website but we recognise that it is probably not complete.

See answer to Question 21.

Ensuring that traffic around such buildings and spaces is drastically minimised, so the pollution levels are also significantly cut.

Neighborhood Plans to designate non listed interesting buildings – to have something akin to a ‘locally conserved’ status.

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time.

More Neighbourhood Plans can recognise and protect key local vistas, Conservation Areas and non-designated heritage assets, alongside Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments. Development Control must give more weight to design factors laid out in Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Statements if local character is to be conserved.

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time. Stop over abstraction of water from the Eastern Chalk aquifer for our domestic supplies (and agriculture) as it it damaging the chalk streams and the river Cam. Put in place measures to protect the chalk streams and find ways of both reducing our water usage (eg new housing developments to use “grey water” for flushing toilets etc) and requiring water companies to dramatically reduce leakage and invest in new reservoirs, natural water catchment and flood prevention. Suspend all developments on the Eastern Chalk Aquifer until a solution to over abstraction has been found. See https://camvalleyforum.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-River-Cam-Manifesto-final2.pdf for more details.

Increase protection of natural and historical sites. Encourage people to use, enjoy and care for areas of nature

‘Historic Environment Strategy’ needed. The next Local Plan must include an ‘historic environment strategy’ if we are to retain the essential character of our streets, city and surrounds. Such a strategy is required in the National Planning Policy Framework, but still Cambridge remains without one. This is an urgent priority, so that Planning will have a framework for making informed and holistic decisions about new infrastructure and building, population growth, biodiversity, sustainability and pollution — all in the context of doing what can be done to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. Stricter guidelines based on this strategy should be included within the Local Plan, and vigorously enforced. Currently not all areas are included within Conservation Areas, so they get scant review and the character of many areas is being eroded, one planning application at a time. To help with this project, the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum stands ready to work with the Council on further developing our draft Street Appraisals for the area. We have already done much of the work and would be happy to offer it as part of the Local Plan process.

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time.

Through a responsible approach albeit with a balancing mechanism as per the response to Q21 above.

No comment.

As set out above, high standards of design and sustainability are being sought as part of the proposed redevelopment of the site. A significant improvement to the public realm on site will be achieved as part of the proposed development.

4.40 New development can provide opportunities for improvements in the quality of the historic environment. For example, the setting of heritage assets often has elements that detract from the significance of the asset. However, it will be important for the Local Plan to balance heritage protection with the demands of growth and proposals affecting heritage assets should continue to be required to include for an assessment of significance of any heritage assets affected.

5.39 As part of a flexible development strategy, it is likely that an increase in the built density within Cambridge will be required. Given that the majority of Cambridge lies within a Conservation Area Page 15 and comprises many listed buildings, it is almost inevitable that new development will have a level of impact on such designated heritage assets. It needs to be acknowledged, however, that when determining applications within Cambridge a planning balance will likely need to be made in terms of weighing heritage conservation against the demand for new housing and economic growth and the associated public benefits. 5.40 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF notes that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. A similar line of enquiry is stipulated in Paragraph 195 regarding proposals which would result in substantial harm to or the total loss of the significance of heritage assets. 5.41 The proposed policy framework should therefore take the above into account. Where a proposal would result in a level of harm to a designated heritage asset in Cambridge, it should be balanced against the public benefits of the scheme. Although decisions will be made on a case by case basis, it is considered that great weight should be given to proposals which would provide substantial public benefits, including the provision of high-density, well-designed housing on sites which are in close proximity to the city centre and/or public transport routes. While it is acknowledged that many sites in central Cambridge comprise, are adjacent to, or are within designated heritage assets, the opportunity to provide extensive public benefits associated with large scale developments should not be balanced against the potential harm to designated heritage assets. 5.42 Paragraph 200 of the NPPF notes that Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that achieve these elements should be treated favourably within the emerging policy framework. An example of how this could be achieved would be for proposed developments to concentrate public open space around designated heritage assets. Such measures would likely enhance the significance of designated heritage assets, while at the same time still ensuring the delivery of much needed dwellings and employment floorspace.

4.37 New development can provide opportunities for improvements in the quality of the historic environment. For example, the setting of heritage assets often have elements that detract from the significance of the asset. However, it will be important for the Local Plan to balance heritage with the demands of sustainable growth.

New development can provide opportunities for improvements in the quality of the historic environment. For example, the setting of heritage assets often has elements that detract from the significance of the asset. However, it will be important for the Local Plan to balance heritage protection with the demands of growth and proposals affecting heritage assets should continue to be required to include for an assessment of significance of any heritage assets affected.

Emphasis should be on respect for settings and avoiding/ minimising harm. The National Trust understands that major infrastructure proposals lie outside the local planning authority’s consenting powers, however Local Plan policy should establish the highest possible safeguards for the protection of all heritage assets, historic places and important landscapes. The Trust has objected to the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge busway on heritage and landscape conservation grounds because we do not consider the off-road part of the scheme across land protected by Trust covenants provides enough safeguards. See also our comments on Q 39.

(We feel that this question is seriously flawed, it should refer to ‘historic places, buildings and landscapes’. It is also two separate questions, so we have split our response between to historic buildings (Question 22A) and historic landscapes (Question 22B) 22 A: How do you think we should protect, enhance and adapt our historic buildings? Cambridge meets 4 of the Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage Sites (i) “to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius” (King’s College Chapel); (ii) “to exhibit an important interchange of human values….on developments in architecture or technology…or landscape design” (the Colleges, University buildings, the best modern buildings, the Backs); (iv) “to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates significant stage(s) in human history (e.g. King’s College, the Old Schools, Senate House and Gonville and Caius as the living focus of one of the greatest universities in the world; the Backs; Downing as a ground breaking built representation of the early c19 neo-Classical ideal). • An Historic Environment Strategy that builds on the Conservation Area Appraisals, considers Cambridge in its landscape setting, identifies risks to the historic heritage and sets out full mitigation measures is of fundamental importance. This needs to consider the whole landscape associated with historic Cambridge, including the upper Cam as far as Byron’s Pool and the lower Cam along the length of the Lents and Mays course as far as Baits Bite. The lower Cam section, although fully covered by Conservation Area designations, has been threatened by growth-related transport proposal; so have the West Fields. The arguably more significant cultural landscape between Cambridge and Grantchester and beyond have no such protection, with the Grantchester Conservation Area boundary narrowly drawn and no Appraisal. While Grantchester Meadows are owned by Kings’ College, this ownership neither provides direct protection from developments beyond their boundary, nor has any force in planning terms. The need for such protection is highlighted by the impacts on the Meadows of the combined height and bulk of the CB1 development. Air pollution damages the fabric of old buildings and not just people’s lungs: the vibrations from heavy vehicles will over time weaken the structure of historic buildings. We must keep polluting buses/vehicles out of the historic core. • It is important for planners to appreciate that protection should extend to the setting and curtilage of an historic building and not just the physical structure: also views which may include distant views. • More Conservation Areas, active management of Conservation Areas and preparation of enhancement proposals, and up-to-date listing of Buildings of Local Importance. Buildings listed by English Heritage are generally well protected – the problem is with locally significant buildings that contribute to the local character but do not warrant listing. This produces a strong polarity between buildings considered important to protect and others that can be dismissed. • Adaptation, especially energy efficiency to minimise carbon emissions, is problematic in old heritage buildings. Heritage significance should be assessed, as required by BS 7913:2013, before proposing retrofit measures. As a general principle, and as required by PAS 2035, the heritage features, fabric, and significance of a building should not be impacted or reduced in a zealous drive to minimise emissions. This may mean offsetting measures elsewhere. • The introduction of safety and security measures, like barriers, cameras, and fencing to prevent entry, can all have a detrimental effect on the public enjoyment of our heritage. Planners must be alert to the possibility of over-reacting with invasive security measures to the perception of potential threat rather than to an actual threat. • Planners also need to be alert to the trend for the ‘Disneyfication’ of the heritage especially in areas of high tourism. • What can be done to promote the heritage outside the central core? Can tours be encouraged to less visited parts of the city – like along the Cam or the Leper Chapel/Museum of Technology/Abbey Church? In the mind of the planners, ‘heritage’ is becoming increasingly zoned as a concern just of the central core area. 22B: How do you think we should protect and enhance our landscapes? • A Landscape Character Assessment for Greater Cambridge should form part of the Local Plan. The historic and cultural significance of landscapes, where applicable, should be given full weight. • Local Plan policy should require developments to be in keeping with the landscape character assessments. • Local Plan site allocation should seek to discourage any development in those landscape character areas that are identified as being of highest value or at highest risk.

With respect to landscape, the Wildlife Trust believes that significant enhancement to the quality of the landscapes in Greater Cambridge is required, both those that provide the immediate setting to Cambridge, but also the rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire. Although there are some gems that provide the building blocks for an enhanced nature network, much of the landscape of Greater Cambridge is biodiversity impoverished, with considerable effort required to achieve a functioning nature recovery network. New wildlife-rich habitats can increase the quality of the landscape. The Green Belt that provides the setting for Cambridge is a particular case in point. Whatever model of future growth is adopted for Cambridge, key parts of the rural hinterland need to be protected in perpetuity and enhanced as part of a nature recovery network, with the threat of development removed. Without this there is always development hope value and no incentive to actually enhance the landscape or reverse the decline in biodiversity. Cambridge should continue to retain significant green corridors through the urban areas and linking to an enhanced countryside beyond. There is also scope to improve the landscape setting of other settlements including some villages.

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region.

As we found with the Neighbourhood Plan there are many more buildings with a historical interest than those which are listed. Need a catalogue of each community (produced by the community) of the entire gamut locally and the relative importance and what needs preserving about each (i.e. that is not always everything but may be a view from a particular direction). Ensure there is interest and commitment to preserve them. Encourage new ideas to be considered on adaptation required. Reconsider and re-calibrate what we value and promote these values in society to balance our current focus on achieving the bottom line

• We should reduce car parking and car traffic in our historic spaces and provide more room for people walking and cycling. • Fewer cars and more walking and cycling will result in less air pollution, noise, road danger and erosion and damage to our historic buildings and areas. • Cycling is part of Cambridge culture and is what people expect to see when they come and visit our city and region. • Reallocating space from roads and cars to walking and cycling will make our cities and villages more accessible and pleasant places to spend time.

Afford them ‘protected status’, only allow encroachment in exceptional circumstances. Cambridge’s heritage is what makes it Cambridge, once over built it loses its identity.

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.