Question 23. How do you think we could ensure that new development is as well-designed as possible?

(Same answer as Q21) In my opinion, the new housing developments north and south of Cambridge look very bleak, like giant boxes scattered across a featureless terrain. Can't planners and architects do more to make new communities look welcoming and livable?

As a member of the co-housing community featured in this survey, the planning process was unable or unwilling to be flexible in handling a non-conventional development. Policies designed to control bulk developers were applied in the same way to a development where future residents were involved and invested in the long-term success of the site. Parking maximums were treated as minimums when residents wanted to take a positive step in reducing travel by car. Designated car-free space safe for children to play was allocated to parking. Planting was specified and locked-in for an extended period, when residents wanted to be able to make communal green space their own. When it comes to community-led building, context is important, and trusting the people involved to want to improve their environment.

Don't cut costs now which will compromise quality and long-term sustainability.

Unfortunately, the number of uninspiring buildings appearing in Cambridge over recent years does not suggest having a Plan necessarily achieves this laudable aim.

Environmentally. the changes of heating systems are vital. The Central Heating System such as built in Eddington is recommendable. Solarpanels and renewable energy is a must, insulation of walls and windows can be improved with new techniques. Reduce cement in the constructions and replace by sustainable wood. Reduction in leaks for water and upgrade sewer systems. • New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities e.g. as in Stevanage. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes.

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. See Parkin (2018) for details. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, highquality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. People walking, cycling and driving motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds from each other. Substantial flows of one mode must not be mixed together with the others, because it would be unsatisfactory and unsafe for all modes. • Too many poorly-designed developments are being granted permission (Carmona, 2020). The Local Plan is only as strong as the people who defend its principles. The planning committee and officers must be ready and willing to refuse permission to poorly designed developments. We especially emphasise that the planning authority must challenge car-centric road designs that come from the highway authority and refuse to accept car-dominated plans from the county or Combined Authority. “Designing cycle infrastructure means working on an accessible, sustainable, healthy, habitable and attractive living environment. Consequently, cycle infrastructure is inextricable from its spatial planning and social context.” (CROW, 2017, p. 37) “Cycle infrastructure designed in an integrated fashion will unite the traffic function with the spatial quality and the economic and social potential of cycling. This will enable cycle facilities to go beyond their primary traffic function and have a structuring, enriching effect on their environment in their entirety.” (CROW, 2017, p. 38) “We consider that British local authorities should be encouraged to develop a vision for highly sustainable developments on important sites, similar to European best practice, with thoroughgoing integration of land-use and transport.” (Taylor, 2011) “Generally shared use pedestrian / cycling paths alongside the carriageway are not favoured by either the City Council or the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. The City and County Council Cycling Officers raised objections to the designing in of ‘pavement cycling’, particularly of an inadequate width and requested that the route through the site should be segregated from pedestrians.” (Cambridge City Council, 2009) “Following advice set out in the NPPF (2012 and 2019), over one in five of the audited schemes — those scoring poor and very poor — should have been refused planning permission outright. Given that the national aspiration is for ‘good design’ as ‘a key aspect of sustainable development’, the mediocre projects — over half the audited total — fail the national threshold of schemes likely to prove acceptable to their communities. The design of these schemes should certainly have been improved before relevant permissions were granted.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 23. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • CROW (1996–2017). The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW-Fietsberaad. Ede, Nederland. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

Set a higher standards for housing developers to meet, and make it legally impossible for them to have more power than the councils, so that the councils can demand what they asked for and not be pressured into anything else.

New developments should be designed with walking and cycling as the main form of transport. Walking, cycling and motor traffic should be kept sepeate as they have very different speeds of ideal travel which do not overlap

New developments must follow design standards for longevity as well as energy efficiency. Developments providing accommodation for council tenants must be of high quality for durability. They must be designed to withstand wear-and-tear instead of with the expectation of regular replacement. New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

The huge scale of many recent developments creates a bland homogeneity at odds with the organic that makes settlements attractive. Developments of more than 30 dwellings ought to have a ratio of 10% for self-builders and/or co-housing as a way of injecting the variety and quality that is associated with people investing their own money in a long term commitment to the development. Do let not let County Highways dictate design. Enforce conformity with the permitted scheme through inspection at completion.

No new development. In Peterborough, employ Stefano Boeri architects to design passive house buildings that enhance biodiversity.

Priorities quality walking with separate cycleways. Promote local community facilities and meeting places to stop and interact/share. Nearby facilities and so limiting need to travel far (local schools, shops, entertainment facilities) Lots of open green spaces. Easy access by foot or bike to public transport

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very effective in our opinion. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

• In the words of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission (BBBBC) Report Living with Beauty (30 January 2020): “Ask for Beauty. Refuse Ugliness. Promote Stewardship”. • Beauty in a well-designed development is not subjective. Most people know and appreciate beauty when they see it even if they cannot articulate it. That is why people make a bee-line for particular cities and towns, or particular parts of them. Beauty is there in a sense of place, a feeling of a spirit of community, and in the promotion of a healthy and happy life, as well as in a well-designed building. • Developers should be made aware of this ‘pursuit of beauty’ at an early stage, and particularly at any pre-application engagement. Applications should fully conform to VDGs and NPs. Bland, poorly designed, and ugly buildings should be refused – policies in the Local Plan need to make it easier for the LPA to refuse schemes which are not well designed. Might the BBBBC Report help facilitate that objective?

Unfortunately, the number of uninspiring buildings appearing in Cambridge over recent years does not suggest having a Plan necessarily achieves this laudable aim.

If it is not PassivHaus then it is not well-designed. Environmental impact and resilience, plus disabled access, are the primary concerns. Aesthetics are a very distant 3rd.

Advice is already provided through the NPPF: o Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations o Design policies should…be grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics o Neighbourhood plans can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development o To provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage, plans or supplementary planning documents should use visual tools such as design guides and codes. These provide a framework for creating distinctive places, with a consistent and high quality standard of design. However their level of detail and degree of prescription should be tailored to the circumstances in each place, and should allow a suitable degree of variety where this would be justified. o Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth is from 2010 and may benefit from collaborative work to update it and reflect the enhanced role of climate change mitigation within successful design.

better provision for planning officials to be able to spend appropriate amounts of time considering proposals, and clout so developers fulfil their wishes. Ultimately more cash for the planning teams so they can do their jobs properly - this should be funded by the developers and central government.

Follow professional guidelines from walking/cycling experts so that designs encourage sustainable travelling. Similarly for building design.

My answer to Q21 probably should have gone here, sorry: Architecture is so subjective. To ensure new development is well-designed, the only thing I can suggest is to encourage and facilitate wider participation in the planning process, in the hope that crowdsourced feedback will prevent more Marques and columns (University Arms hotel) etc. Perhaps displays of a developer’s proposal at the actual site would help, by engaging directly with those people whose homes overlook it and who walk and cycle past it. These are the people who will suffer (or benefit) the most when the project manifests as a carbuncle (or thing of beauty).

Well-designed developments should take the opportunity for improving the character and quality of an area, be properly served by infrastructure and contribute to the needs of the wider community. Individual buildings, their immediate surroundings and where they sit within the wider landscape, should all be carefully considered when designing new developments. Grosvenor’s commitments to developing high quality places is reflected through Trumpington Meadows. The scheme mirrors principles of good design and high quality place-making, which made it an award-winning scheme. These would be extended to Trumpington South. If the site were allocated, a Design Code would be prepared as part of an outline planning application. The Design Code would secure the delivery of a high quality sustainable scheme.

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

Ensure design principles are implemented that include, ensuring developments are inobtrusive and always reflect the heritage and context of Cambridge. Additionally, accessible, inclusive and sustainable. Publicising and making available examples of good design to the public to increase awareness and educate communities on good design principles and keep up to date – perhaps email threads or monthly updates. New developments should also provide sustainable transport with appropriate infrastructure provision for electric buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

In our experience the following measure are effective when promoting design quality: 1. Architectural competitions (for projects on CCC land) 2. Continued production of design-led area-based guidance (potentially as SPD) for key sites, particularly where a cohesive approach to movement and public realm is required

Good design is best achieved through planning applications. Recognition must be given to the quality of the landscape planting, materials and details both of the buildings and the public realm when creating new developments.

Designing and building Great Places will have knock-on effects for improvement in Biodiversity, Climate Change, Social Inclusion and Health and Well-Being. It's all down to good design guided by some really strong design principles enforced by local authorities. We should not be building any more new dwellings (including factory built units) which use gas heating (unless they are part of a district heating system which could be converted at a later date to a non-carbon fuel). All new building should be to Passiv-Haus standards of insulation. We need to have these requirements in place NOW. We need to get developers to put a statement front and centre of theit plans indicating what they are doing in this respect so that their plans are open and transparent to the public.

Building standards must be improved. We should value people's wellbeing of developer profit. The quality of the place you live in has a huge impact on your quality of life. There should be sensible layouts, enough space, good ventilation, good heating and high levels of sustainability. Developments should dedicate space to local facilities, businesses, green spaces and places to be. We cannot have 'dormitory' estates that are boring and lead to loneliness and crime. We have new developments in Cambridge that don't even have a corner store or a pub! very depressing. Transport must be considered from the earliest stage of any new developments. New developments must be connected to public transport and cycling networks from day one. This should be specific in policy and there should be enforcement, fines, rectification for any developers who fail to do this. If this can't be done, the development should not be allowed. See Camcycle's response for more details on how this should be done.

Any new development must have infrastructure that meets the highest design standards, such as those the Dutch use. Walking and cycling must be prioritised and in place before the schemes are occupied. The planning committee and officers must be willing to refuse permission to poorly designed developments. The planning authority must challenge car-centric road designs that come from the highway authority and refuse to accept car-dominated plans from the county or Combined Authority.