Question 49. Do you have any views on any specific policies in the two adopted 2018 Local Plans? If so, what are they?

2018 Local Plan: '1.5This plan is essentially a pragmatic continuation of the 2006 growth strategy, adjusted to reflect the experience of delivering that strategy and the current context for planning. It focuses on delivery and meeting Cambridge’s needs. The plan reflects how the current growth is changing the city and the new challenges this creates. In the light of experience, the plan has an increased emphasis on mitigating transport impacts and securing further progress on sustainable development, area improvement and place making' The 2018 City Plan was essentially drafted prior to 2013, before the speed and extent of the threat of global heating had fully entered the consciousness of the drafters, and the extent to which assumptions made in 2006 about growth should have been re-considered in the light of emerging evidence. Policy 28 which is the Plan's policy to address the issue reflects concern to reduce the climate impact of building development, but does not seriously address or measure the environmental and climate impact of growth itself. The new plan should challenge the assumptions about sustainable growth that went into the 2018 plan, which itself 'pragmatically continued' the 20o6 Local Plan. Understanding since 2006 has changed. The new Local Plan needs to reflect that understanding

Yes. With regard to new employment development: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; Policy E/12 – is far too vague and it should be clear what is meant by ‘in keeping with the scale of a village’ and ‘be in character and scale with the location’. A more specific policy would be welcome; and Policy E/13 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. Why is it limited to brownfield land? Why is a named occupier required? Why is a business case required? If village employment is to be encouraged, then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

We do not support the Infill Village policy (S/11) as currently applies to Ickleton. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is currently possible to circumvent the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a new village housing policy. Current policy is somewhat crude in focusing on unit numbers rather than an amount of development: two starter homes are very different from two large detached dwellings.

The existing Local Plans have been unduly restrictive particularly in terms of village development a number of which have suffered as a result of a lack of new housing to support existing facilities. This trend needs to be reversed.

The combination of Local Plan polices S/7 Development Frameworks and S/11 Infill Villages are effective for small villages like ours and easy to understand.

Small scale food growing (bigger than allotments) is barely mentioned - we need to think about land use more holistically, for creating good jobs, protecting nature etc - we should be thinking about how can Cambridge feed its as a city, through production, not just consumption

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account villages such as Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/10 of the adopted Local Plan defines Whittlesford as a “Group Village” where residential development is limited to only 8 dwellings per scheme within the development framework and only 15 on brownfield sites – 15 being an “exceptional” case. Due to the sustainable nature of Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge and its proximity to employment opportunities, it should be much higher up the defined settlement hierarchy.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the development strategy should be reconsidered to take into account villages such as Duxford that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/10 of the adopted Local Plan defines Duxford as a “Group Village” where residential development is limited to only 8 dwellings per scheme within the development framework and only 15 on brownfield sites – 15 being an “exceptional” case. Due to the sustainable nature of Duxford and its proximity to employment opportunities, it should be much higher up the defined settlement hierarchy.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account villages such as Histon, that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan defines Histon as a “Rural Centre” where residential development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the development frameworks provided that adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development. Due to the sustainable nature of Histon and its proximity to employment opportunities, we consider that it should retain this place on the settlement hierarchy.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be maintained to take into account villages such as Sawston, that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should remain higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan defines Sawston as a “Rural Centre” where development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the development frameworks of the village. Due to the sustainable nature of Sawston and its proximity to employment opportunities, we consider that its status as a Rural Centre status should be maintained. This should be reflected in an appropriate-worded policy in the emerging Local Plan.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be maintained to take into account villages such as Sawston, that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should remain higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan defines Sawston as a “Rural Centre” where development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the development frameworks of the village. Due to the sustainable nature of Sawston and its proximity to employment opportunities, we consider that its status as a Rural Centre status should be maintained. This should be reflected in an appropriate-worded policy in the emerging Local Plan.

Yes. With regard to new employment development: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; and Policy E/14 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. If brownfield development is to encouraged then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

Yes. With regards to new employment development and settlement heirarchy: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; and Policy E/14 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. If brownfield development is to be encouraged then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

Policy E/11 of the adopted Local Plan is inflexible and clearly ‘out of date’. The nature of the distribution sector has changed considerably over the last 30 years, as logistics have become more sophisticated in response to global trends and an increasingly demanding and complex market. Today’s industry is particularly affected by customer requirements for ‘just in time’ deliveries and the growth in internet shopping with its associated home deliveries. Activities within warehouses have equally changed, and where focus was previously on simple material stockholding, today’s warehouse can offer a range of services, providing consolidation opportunities, assembly and value-added service centres. Employment densities in the modern warehouse can now approach those of manufacturing, and whilst reliance on mechanised and computer picking systems increases, the required number of employees in such modern distribution facilities continues to grow. Job opportunities typically comprise a mix of professional, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. The importance of the logistics industry has long been recognised by the Government. In 2011, the Department for Transport in its “Logistics Growth Review”, highlighted the essential role of distribution in the UK economy. Paragraph 1 of this document states: “The logistics sector is a hugely important part of the UK economy. It is an important business in its own right, with the output of core logistics activities in 2009 accounting for almost 9% of UK GVA and around 7% of total employment. It is also a critically important enabler of the success of other businesses of all sizes and sectors - from corner shops to supermarkets, manufacturers to eBay entrepreneurs, and energy companies to waste businesses.” Paragraph 3 then states: “Facilitating conditions for growth in the logistics sector is therefore critical to the Government’s growth agenda”. By December 2014, the Government in its National Policy Statement for National Networks had further quantified the value of the industry: “The logistics industry, which directly employs over 2 million people across more than 190,000 companies generating over £90 billion annually underpins the efficient operation of most sectors of the wider national economy.” (paragraph 2.42) The NPPF singles out the storage and distribution sector as one of only three sectors for particular attention. Under the chapter title of ‘Building a Strong Competitive Economy’ and with regard to the identified requirement of the planning system to give significant weight to the need to support economic growth and productivity, paragraph 82 states: “Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations.” The storage and distribution service sector, therefore, is not only recognised as a key economic sector in its own right, employing high levels of people directly, but also its essential role in supporting other key sectors that rely on efficient movement of goods is widely acknowledged. The blanket restriction on large scale warehousing & logistics development set out in Policy E/11 is not sound and should be removed from the development plan.

The College supports South Cambridge’s 2018 polices which support the growth of new economic clusters (Policy E/9) and the special case policy for expanding IWM (Policy E/7) which the College would directly facilitate through the development of its landholdings and its proposed green link access. Given its “Call for Sites” proposals for major new mixed use sustainable development at Duxford and the comments on the spatial options presented in this Issues and Options consultation, the College considers the current settlement hierarchy policies will need to reviewed and amended in the new Local Plan to give support for the sustainable expansion of key villages outside the Green Belt.

We believe that the village classifications within the planned policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account the villages such as Balsham that are sustainable villages in their own right but also in close proximity to employment and on existing and planned public transport corridors. Balsham should be therefore higher up on the settlement hierarchy and considered to be able to accommodate more development. For example, at present, under Policy S/10, Balsham is defined as a “Group Village” where residential development is limited to only 8 dwellings per scheme within the development framework and only 15 on brownfield sites – 15 being an “exceptional” case. Due to the sustainable nature of Balsham, this village should be considered much higher in the settlement hierarchy.

Yes. With regard to new employment development: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; Policy E/12 – is far too vague and it should be clear what is meant by ‘in keeping with the scale of a village’ and ‘be in character and scale with the location’. A more specific policy would be welcome; and Policy E/13 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. Why is it limited to brownfield land? Why is a named occupier required? Why is a business case required? If village employment is to be encouraged, then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account the villages such as Great Abington that are sustainable villages in their own right but also in close proximity to employment and on existing and planning public transport corridors be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. For example, at present, under Policy S/10, Great Abington is defined as a “Group Villages” where residential development is limited to only 8 dwellings per scheme within the development framework and only 15 on brownfield sites – 15 being an “exceptional” case. Due to the sustainable nature of Great Abington, this village should be considered much higher on the settlement hierarchy.

Yes. With regards to new employment development and settlement heirarchy: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; and Policy E/14 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. If brownfield development is to be encouraged then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted. As a consequence of the range of facilities available within Fulbourn and its close proximity to Cambridge, it is contended that Fulbourn should be designated as a Rural Centre as defined by Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan, from its current designation as a Minor Rural Centre (Policy S/9).

Yes. With regard to new employment development: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; and Policy E/14 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. If brownfield development is to encouraged then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account villages such as Fulbourn, that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/9 of the adopted Local Plan defines Fulbourn as a “Minor Rural Centre” where residential development is limited to 30 dwellings per scheme within the development framework. Due to the sustainable nature of Fulbourn and its proximity to employment opportunities, it should be much higher up the defined settlement hierarchy. We consider that policies relating to development in Fulbourn should not be limited by size. Rather any application for development should be determined on its merits and any policy should be flexible. This could reflect the wording for Policy S/8 (Rural Centres) of the adopted Local Plan which states that “Development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the development frameworks … provided that adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development.”

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. • The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. • The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward.

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. • The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. • The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

Village categories and the hierarchy of settlements are concepts that are supported. They provide a considerable level of certainty on planning issues. They, or something very like them, should be retained in the new Local Plan.

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs • Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. • Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. The South Cambridgeshire Locadesigns l Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.

Sites and developers should be chosen on their ability to satisfy sustainable transport goals and shift the overwhelming majority of everyday journeys out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. If a realistic Transport Assessment cannot achieve that goal then the site is not suitable for development.

Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is continually ignored by the county council highway authority, who force car-dominant road schemes onto developments, thus killing any chances of walking and cycling priority or quality. This must be fixed. We cannot continue to allow developments to become dominated by car-centric highway designs. Policy TI/2 in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is even worse because it does not commit to walking or cycling priority at all. That is not acceptable going forward. Policy 82, Appendix L and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD together form the Cambridge cycle parking policies and guidance. These should be updated to be brought up to date with inclusive guidance and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Camcycle must be consulted during the updating process. The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan does not have a cycle parking guide at all, which means that developments in South Cambridgeshire often produce very poor quality cycle parking.