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

This question is seriously flawed, it should refer to historic PLACES, buildings and landscapes. It is also two separate questions, so my response is split between historic places and buildings (Question 22A) and historic landscapes (Question 22B) 22 A: How do you think we should protect, enhance and adapt our historic places and buildings? • The historic city of Cambridge meets at least 3 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 early c19 neo-Classical ideals). • Whether or not it is considered desirable for Cambridge to be given World Heritage Site status (as was mooted in the 1980s), the Local Plan should value Cambridge’s historic environment as if it were a World Heritage site. It is this level of international cultural and historic significance, expressed in the beauty of the historic city, which attracts students, workers, and visitors from all over the world. The Historic Environment Strategy should start with the international significance of Cambridge as a whole, build on the Conservation Area Appraisals, consider Cambridge in its landscape setting, identify risks to the historic heritage, and set out full mitigation measures. The Strategy 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 even more significant cultural landscape between Cambridge and Grantchester and beyond has no formal 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. • 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. 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.

These are three separate and often conflicting objectives. In each situation, prioritise the objectives and go with it.

4.35 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.

- greater rigour is needed in examining visual impact statements submitted by developers. For example, FDPC challenged the choice of viewpoints on Ditton Meadows in relation to the proposed height of the office and hotel buildings around Cambridge North. Are there examples of outcomes being compared with such submissions?

4.27 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.

4.35 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.

Question 22 – Historic Buildings 2.12 The comments with regard to Question 9 apply also to this question with regard to this question about adapting historic buildings.

2.3 Downing College is committed to finding ways to reduce its carbon footprint, whilst improving the performance of its buildings. The College has recently appointed consultants to explore this issue and provide options for the existing building stock and also advise on how future building projects can deliver significant environmental improvements. 2.4 It is widely recognised that, in principle, new buildings can be designed to achieve net zero carbon, even within an historic environment. However, Downing College, as is the case with many of the Cambridge Colleges, has an existing stock of buildings which are either listed in their own right or are located within Conservation Areas. Whilst their adaptation is not prevented, their designations as heritage assets understandably mean that first and foremost their significance needs to be protected and enhanced. 2.5 The College considers that the emerging Local Plan needs to recognise that the means of achieving net zero carbon in a new building is considerably different from adapting or refurbishing a building, especially when heritage assets of varying degrees of importance are located within or adjacent to sites. It is important at this early stage of the emerging Local Plan to understand this context, given that across the Greater Cambridge area there are 89 Conservation Areas and 3,519 listed buildings. 2.6 The College suggests that the Council should undertake a number of pieces of research to inform its evidence base for this emerging Local Plan in respect of this issue. This research should include: ‒ Collaborative research with Historic England and others to identify feasible options and/or a methodology for historic buildings or those in an historic setting to be adapted sensitively in order to improve their thermal performance; ‒ Review of options for carbon offsetting within the Greater Cambridge area and the production of an Supplementary Planning Document SPD) as part of the emerging Local Plan as per the London Plan. If carbon offset funds are considered an appropriate option for the Greater Cambridge area, then the inclusion of a range of funds which are proportionate and relevant to the project that is being carried out should be contained in an SPD including historic and heritage schemes. This recommendation is particularly important for Colleges, such as Downing, which are land locked in the City and have a finite quantity of land for such offsetting as part of future projects. 2.7 By declaring a climate emergency, the Councils have recognised the importance of finding ways to reduce the impact of development on the environment. The College would emphasise that if change is to happen, organisations and research institutes need to collaborate. The emerging Local Plan must incorporate the findings of such research in any future wording and guidance that it produces, offer solutions, and be proactive in its recommendations, rather than putting the entire emphasis on the applicant to provide information and solutions. The process should be two way and rely heavily on experience, lessons learnt from other projects, and best practice

Q22: How do you think we should protect, enhance and adapt our historic buildings and landscapes? 2.21 See comments on Q9 and Q11 regarding adapting historic buildings in response to climate change. 2.22 IWM is committed to its responsibilities as the custodian of the heritage assets at Duxford as part of its duty to preserve for the nation its collection as a national museum. The current resistance to relatively minor changes described in Q11 directly impacts IWM’s ability, as a charity with limited funds, to conserve and protect the built heritage of the site by creating prohibitive delays, costs and conditions. A more balanced and pragmatic approach by the Council would facilitate more proactive action by IWM across a greater range of its heritage assets. 2.23 See response to Q12 regarding protection of historic landscape setting of the airfield. 2.24 IWM welcomes the positive working relationship it has with both the Council and Historic England. On a site which is wholly within a conservation area (the IWM assisted with and supported its designation) and contains such a high number of heritage assets, the continuation of such relationships is vital. 2.25 To assist this, IWM drew up a masterplan (which has recently been refreshed) which was itself informed by a Conservation Management Plan, a landscape study and a transport study. 2.26 Masterplans are extremely useful and important documents which allow a long term vision for complex sites with multiple designations to be shared and the potential of them to be unlocked whilst involving key stakeholders throughout the process. They provide continuity and broad certainty which benefits the freeholder and any tenants, statutory bodies and consultees and the public. 2.27 The next local plan should actively encourage the drawing up of masterplans for sites such as IWM Duxford and include a commitment to devise a process by which such documents can be enshrined in policy, as SPD or at least endorsed by the Council. Without this, personnel changes to Council officers and members mean that they lack permanence and become resource-hungry because of the need to constantly remind people of their existence. Response to Q9 2.5 In terms of missing key actions, IWM recognises that the present local plan includes policies such as NH/15 (Heritage Assets and Adapting to Climate Change) and that the Council has produced the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. However, with regard to historic buildings, the latter provides little additional information particularly in terms of advice on how heritage significance should be weighed against energy efficiency in practical ways. 2.6 IWM is also aware that guidance has been produced by Historic England and other respected bodies. The former is often quite specific and relates to specific aspects of building fabric, such as insulation or windows, whilst the latter is often generic or looks at residential building types. Its use is therefore limited given that many of the historic buildings at Duxford were designed for specific functions, of cheap / readily available materials and at a time when comfort and safety were differently perceived. 2.7 This lack of practical information needs to be addressed in the new local plan (and possibly also in revised SPD). What is needed is an understandable methodology for assessing climate change benefits; clearly defining the heritage significance of buildings and their component parts; balancing different levels of harm to different features; how you measure the resultant heritage harm and then to bring all this information together to decide which measures are acceptable. 2.8 IWM feel that the Council needs to work proactively with it and others both in developing an evidence base to support any policy / guidance and consequently learning from best practice, both in Gt Cambridge and elsewhere. A failure of the current local plan policy is that all the emphasis is placed on the applicant to provide information. At a time when the Council has declared a ‘climate emergency’ there needs to be a much more joined up and collaborative approach to this issue. 2.9 There is also a need for clear guidance for situations where carbon offsetting is justified. Altering some of the cheaply-built, utilitarian structures at Duxford to reduce their carbon footprint would fundamentally alter their heritage significance and their authenticity. Similarly, flying historic aircraft cannot in itself be done without a carbon footprint. 2.10 Offsetting is therefore the obvious answer. IWM would be keen to work with the Council to discuss the situations where offsetting is desirable or is acceptable and what form this should take so that it is of direct relevance to the place or issue concerned Response to Q11 2.11 IWM considers that currently the practice amongst Council officers to resist even relatively minor changes to heritage assets even when the benefit in sustainability and other terms is quite great needs to fundamentally alter. This practice has very clear implications for institutions with a large portfolio of heritage assets and their ability to meet climate change targets. It is considered that a more balanced and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted by the Council if this issue is to be realistically addressed

No response proposed.

4.31 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.

2.32. Existing landscape and settlement patterns should inform new development, in conjunction with other environmental constraints, potential opportunities and public consultation.

As with Q.21, historic buildings and landscapes should be protected by ensuring where possible that new development proposals are located elsewhere. Exceptions would be where there is an identified need for enhancement and this requires introduction of new uses or investment to maintain or improve the fabric or appearance and longevity of the asset. Pigeon’s proposal for the site at St Neots Road, Hardwick avoids any such issues.

4.36 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.

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

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.

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.

Obviously by having policies that explicitly protect not just the historic buildings and valuable landscapes, including the Green belt west of the historic centre, but also the views and vistas of and from such historic core and surrounding landscape, principally by locating any further development that is to take place in Cambridge away from the sensitive West Cambridge green belt and the adjoining Conservation Area and placing it in less sensitive landscape area, to the east for example where the landscape and neighbourhoods without the historic buildings and associated landscapes could be positively enhanced by good quality development.

4.36 The proposed redevelopment of the Travis Perkins site will need to sensitively take into account the surrounding Conservation Area and heritage assets. The principle of redeveloping the site for residential uses has been found acceptable through its designation under Policy 24. With the right design, it is considered that a site layout and the proposed massing of the buildings can be formulated that responds sensitively to the surrounding context of the area.

4.46 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.

Given Cambridge’s historic and natural environment, a strategy was previously developed as a tool to aid the ongoing management of the city’s heritage assets, including Cambridge’s Historic Centre Conservation Area. The Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal acknowledges that the Grand Arcade scheme has been largely successful in regenerating this area as a prime commercial area of the city centre. It has provided modern facilities that are attractive for multiples, leaving greater opportunity within the city’s historic streets for locally distinctive independent retailers. This provides the evidence that commercial development and the protection of heritage assets can go hand in hand successfully. In promoting a new Plan which is likely to advocate significant growth in the GCP area, it is important that the balance of supporting commercial growth whilst protecting heritage assets continues.

· 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.

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.

4.36 The proposed redevelopment of the Travis Perkins site will need to sensitively take into account the surrounding Conservation Area and heritage assets. The principle of redeveloping the site for residential uses has been found acceptable through its designation under Policy 24. With the right design, it is considered that a site layout and the proposed massing of the buildings can be formulated that responds sensitively to the surrounding context of the area.

4.31 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.