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

• Policy 80 in the Cambridge Local Plan is repeatedly 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. However, it has clearly grown a bit unwieldy over the years, being spread across two documents in such a fashion. Furthermore, neither document accounts for inclusive cycle parking. Therefore, the cycle parking policies should be refactored, brought up to date with inclusive guidance, and presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion. There are numerous points that are poorly defined by the current Local Plan, including problems with diagonal cycle parking, multi-car garages, different types of cycle sheds, and two-tier racks. • 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. • The observations and recommendations of Carmona (2020) should be given strong consideration as we develop the future Local Plan. Evidence for our response to Question 49. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

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.

The plan massiveley failed to adress the total lack of facilities for the skateborading community in the 'open space and rcreation'. The lack of open spaces has left the skatebaord community feeling alienated and isolated which is hindering a sport which is currently growing in popularity. Skateboarding has also become an olympic sport and therfore should be accomodated in the same way any other sport is locally. We need more open spaces as well as an indoor provision for the community to thrive in the winter and to ultimately promote social inclusion.

• 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 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.

Lack of accommodation for skate boarding in 'open spaces and recreation'

We do not support the Infill Village policy (S/11) which currently applies to Ickleton. Policy S/11 makes little sense as 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.

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by St John’s College, Cambridge to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The College is a significant landowner in and around Cambridge and accordingly needs to make the necessary representations to the Councils in respect of its assets and on other relevant planning policy issues that will arise in the context of any new development plan for the two administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. St Johns College has landholdings which are directly affected by 2 existing policies in the existing Cambridge City Local Plan 2018. These polices are as follows: Policy U3 in Appendix B of Cambridge Local Plan 2018 - “Grange Farm off Wilberforce Road, Cambridge “ This policy allocates 1.22 hectares of “uncultivated land and a tennis court“ for “120 student units”. The site was also allocated in the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 for Student hostel or affordable/key worker housing for the Colleges. The extent of the allocation as shown in the 2018 Local Plan is supported. However it is considered that the reference to its future use for “120 student units” does not provide sufficient flexibility for the College’s aspirations for future development on the site. Firstly the description of “120 student units” is particularly prescriptive. Whilst it is acknowledged that such a figure is an approximation having regard to the footnote in the Plan, the final figure will need to be determined through the planning application process. Secondly, the scope of the allocated use for student units is too narrow from our perspective. In the context of a new Local Plan and the needs of the College in respect of both student and staff accommodation including all of the different categories that fall to be considered with such defined terms , it is considered that the allocated use should be for “College Accommodation”. Importantly it ensures any such accommodation would remain in the control of the College. Policy 14: Areas of Major Change and Opportunity Areas – general principles and Policy 15: Cambridge Northern Fringe East and new railway station Area of Major Change In assessing the relevance of policies in the 2018 Local Plan, it is acknowledged that the adoption date of 2018 is perhaps misleading in terms of the relevance of planning policies and proposals at that point in time. The 2018 adopted plans took some 5 years to come forward and even within that period of time significant legislative and policy changes took place both at national and local level which have already placed a number of policies into a bracket of being at variance with legislation or inconsistent with other emerging plans and policies. One such matter is the proposals for significant new development in North-East Cambridge (NEC). This new planning area has emerged since the 2018 adopted plans and previously known as the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE), its boundaries have now been further extended to include significant new areas to the west to include Cambridge Regional College and Cambridge Science Park. A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the Councils and key stakeholders in a series of workshops and meetings over the past 18 months or so to start to work on a development strategy covering the whole of the NEC area and where a key component element remains the relocation of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Works to an alternative site and the freeing up of a significant amount of previously developed land for largely new residential development. The whole NEC area is thus the subject of a comprehensive review and it is entirely appropriate that any review of the Local Plan provides an updated policy position reflecting the key objectives and aspirations of those stakeholders within that area. St John’s College is the freehold owner of the St John’s Innovation Park which is located in a central position within the NEC area. The success and growth of the Park is well known and it is a truism to state that it is the success of both the Innovation Park and the Cambridge Science Park that have been synonymous with the continued success of Cambridge as a focus for new growth and business in the research and development/technology/life sciences/bioscience sectors. The College’s key objectives remain as ensuring the Innovation Park continues to be a focus for and start-up and early stage businesses with flexibility of space for companies to grow and thrive within the Innovation Park environment. The inputs the College has made together with those from their professional project team during all of the NEC workshops has sought to envisage a 20 year masterplan across the Innovation Park. Such a masterplan looks to respond to the short-term ,medium term and long terms demands for existing and new tenants. Within the overall masterplan it is important to have the necessary flexibility and ability for adaptation to respond to changing needs and requirements over such a long period of time. Clearly, the redevelopment of the Innovation Park is driven by economic demands at the time and which in turn reflect occupier demands and requirements. It is therefore essential that any new masterplan has the necessary fluidity and ability for change to respond to changing priorities and tenants demands as well as changing and evolving planning policies and requirements that are needed alongside the submission of detailed proposals. In the circumstance where the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan will have a plan period up to 2040 then this general timeframe replicates the plan period for the 20 year masterplan for the Innovation Park. However, it remains the case that the timescales for Local Plan adoption and the needs and demands of the market will never be the same and consequently it is absolutely essential that the Councils have sufficiently robust policies in place to be able to address applications that may well come forward from key stakeholders in the NEC area in advance of adoption of both the Local Plan and any associated Area Action Plan (AAP). The current policy approach as set out within the 2018 Local Plans for both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District are based on the need for applicants to demonstrate that those proposals would not unduly prejudice the long term developments of the NEC area sites and the eventual adoption of the AAP. In the circumstances where those key stakeholders are able to comply with such a policy context, then there is no reason for the Councils not to support such proposals provided all the other technical and relevant planning considerations can be satisfactory addressed through the submitted application (s). St John’s College, Cambridge is the freehold owner of an existing employment site in the form of an Innovation Park which has a series of buildings which were constructed in a different economic climate and which are simply not conducive to modern standards and methods of working. With the impetus for economic growth and the stimulation of continued investment in Cambridge and in the NEC area, it is important that such proposals can be designed with the principles of sustainable development in mind, at appropriate densities and with the necessary protection/provision of landscape and other environmental requirements. As part of the masterplanning for the Innovation Park, the College has acknowledged that development should come forward in a phased manner across the whole of the site. The first phase of development will come forward in the north-western corner of the site and which will include the demolition of St John’s House and the intended erection of two new commercial buildings together with a transport hub which incorporates cycle and car parking together with the necessary ancillary facilities of locker and showers and a new gym. All of these elements will be the subject of a detailed planning application and it is intended that such a detailed application would be submitted alongside a masterplan document which would include a concept layout for the whole of the Innovation Park . The masterplan would be an informative document setting out the broad design and siting elements to demonstrate that the phased approach to development over the 20 year period is appropriate and in a form that retains the qualities of the Innovation Park that exists whilst planning for a Park of the future consistent with the broad principles being taken forward within the emerging action area plan and where the College has played a major role. As referred to above, it is intended that a masterplan is submitted alongside each detailed phase of development during the plan period with the masterplan being capable of being changed to ensure that its broad assumptions are consistent with changing policies and market demands and which retain the strategic policies and proposals within a new Local Plan and a detailed Action Area Plan. In summary, the policies as set out within the 2018 Local Plan as it relates to the Cambridge Northern Fringe/North-East Cambridge area are clearly out of date having regard to the ongoing work that the Councils and the key stakeholders have undertaken to date. Any new policy context must set out a clear policy vision for the plan period up to 2020 whilst ensuring that a planning framework exists in the circumstance where planning applications can be submitted in advance of adoption of the Local Plan and the Action Area Plan provided they do not unduly prejudice the outcome of the former. The use of informative/indicative master plans to accompany detailed planning applications is the appropriate way forward having regard to the need to be flexible in adapting to change over a considerable period of time.

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.

Documents too complicated for me to digest. Need simplification for us mere mortals.

An issue with existing policies is that they restrict the scale of development on “sites” within villages, but not the scale of development within a village. So, in a Minor Rural Centre for example, a village could have 2 developments of 30 homes, but not a single development of 45. That is not logical. Effective use should be made of each site.

Stop aiming for economic growth. What is wrong with you?! This is a stupid, bizarre and suicidal goal to have.

Policy S/10 – Group Villages. As currently worded, the Policy does not allow villages like Orwell to grow. As a consequence, given improvements to facilities, local services and infrastructure are often a result of development, the existing policy does not allow villages to become more sustainable and/or provide for a diversity of population (for example, providing suitable properties for existing residents to downsize allowing new families to move in). We therefore suggest, the emerging Local Plan is more flexible to development on the edge of a Village which will align with the NPPF and provide opportunities for sustainable growth alongside supporting and enhancing local services.

Grosvenor and USS’s key concern related to the previous assessment of the Cambridge Green Belt which formed part of the evidence base for the current Local Plan. As mentioned elsewhere in the representations, the nature of the site and its environs are changing. The alterations to the landscape will alter the contribution of the site to Green Belt purposes. This should be recognised in any Green Belt review the Council undertakes to support future stages of the Plan. Please see Terence O’Rourke’s Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal prepared in support of these representations, which makes references to the conclusions made in the LDA Inner Green Belt Assessments (2012 and 2015).

Policy 28: Carbon reduction, community energy networks, sustainable design and construction, and water use – this should approach the climate emergency with greater requirements for developments. Policy 45: Affordable housing and dwelling mix – should specify how housing is truly affordable and provide better housing mix. Policy 60: Tall buildings and the skyline in Cambridge – should set a height restriction to reduce new developments from creating unhuman scale buildings. Policy 77: Development and expansion of visitor accommodation – add text that prevents Airbnb provision and over-development of hotels.

The categorisation of villages by the level of sustainability was bogus and wrong. A more careful analysis needs to be conducted of the car dependency of the villages - a simple exercise of looking at car ownership per dwelling by postcode would reveal much that the 2018 Local Plan missed.

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 Linton that are sustainable villages in their own right but also in close proximity to employment and on existing and planned public transport corridors. Linton should therefore be higher up the settlement hierarchy and considered suitable to accommodate more development. For example, at present, under Policy S/9, Linton is defined as a “Minor Rural Centres” where residential development is limited to only 30 dwellings per scheme within the development framework. Due to the sustainable nature of Linton, this village should be considered much higher in the settlement hierarchy and a much more flexible approach taken to development occurring on the edge and not necessarily within the development framework.

• 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.

Savills (UK) Limited act on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust in respect of their landholdings at Fulbourn including those on the Fulbourn hospital site and on the Ida Darwin site to the east, both of which lie within inside South Cambridgeshire District Council’s administrative area.. The Trust are supportive of the need for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan covering both the administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. A new Local Plan will necessarily have to set aside the administrative boundary between the two Council areas and produce a plan in the period up to 2040 which sets out the strategic plans and policies for the whole of the area in a much more comprehensive and considered approach than perhaps previously with two local plans which were adopted in 2018. Both of those 2018 adopted plans are the subject of review and it is entirely appropriate that any new Local Plan covering the period to 2040 should reassess the policies within those documents to assess whether changes are needed to be made. Our client is obviously concerned to ensure that any policy framework within any new Local Plan is sufficiently flexible to address healthcare issues which remain as a key part of any new Local Plan. In the context of the Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospital sites, the Council will be aware that outline planning permission was granted for residential development on the Ida Darwin site in 2019 and the removal of many of the unsightly single storey healthcare buildings will be followed by detailed applications for the new residential development including community provision. A Development Brief that was produced by the Council back in 2013 remains as an approved Brief by South Cambridgeshire District Council but it remains the case that its contents are out of date having regard to the consent that was granted and any link that the Council sought to establish between the redevelopment of the Ida Darwin site and any new development on the Fulbourn Hospital site. Policy H/3 “Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals” is contained within the adopted September 2018 Local Plan for South Cambridgeshire and confirms the principle of development of new mental health facilities on the Fulbourn Hospital site. The policy as written suggests the “transfer” of part of the building footprint of the Ida Darwin site to Fulbourn Hospital and thus in our view confirms the acceptability of development for such mental health facilities in that location and within the Cambridge Green Belt. It is the case that the evolving strategies for the Trust change and adapt over time and this has been the case more recently with the Trust’s aspirations for the future of the Fulbourn Hospital site where new mental health facilities are a priority and need to replace out-moded facilities that exist on the site. The experience of exploring the provision of new mental health facilities on the Fulbourn Hospital site have faced considerable scrutiny and questioning at a time when mental health remains high on society’s agenda and the well-being of the population should be a key priority from both a mental health prospective as well as the Council’s overall agenda within any new Local Plan. It is the case that if the development at Fulbourn Hospital remains within the Green Belt then on every occasion that a planning application is required then it has to demonstrate the case for Very Special Circumstances. Whilst the Trust appreciates that national planning policy guidance determines what is and what is not acceptable within the Green Belt, we would hope that the local planning authorities reflect upon the Trust’s strongly held view that mental health facilities and its association with Fulbourn Hospital are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances and thus the issue is rather one of design and layout rather than the principle of development in this location. It is also worth reminding the Council that Kent House which was demolished in 2008 was a major feature within the Fulbourn Hospital site at a time when the Green Belt designation was in place as was the designation of the Conservation Area We would certainly wish to suggest wording at the appropriate time to be supportive of the principle of development in the Green Belt at the Fulbourn Hospital site and that mental health facilities constitute Very Special Circumstances in the assessment of development proposals. We look forward to being kept informed of planned progress.

Savills (UK) Ltd has been instructed by Cambridgeshire Constabulary to make representations to the current Issues and Options consultation stage in the context of the review of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Our clients support the move to create a Local Plan to cover both City and South Cambridgeshire District Council having regard to the clear symbiotic relationship that exists between the two areas and in the circumstances where effectively the policies of one authority to an extent dictate the future development of another. In that context, the Council will be aware of the moves to create a new Cambridgeshire Southern Policing Station which would involve the closure and relocation of the existing police station at Parkside in central Cambridge. The Parkside site was identified in the Local Plan in 2006 (allocation 5.12) and also in the current 2018 plan (site M4) as a site capable of accommodating around 50 dwellings. The site lies within the Kite Conservation area designated in 1969, extended in 1993 and 1997 and allocated as a separate conservation area in November 2018. The Kite Conservation Area Appraisal identifies Parkside as a Building of Local Interest (BLI) commenting that the property is “a good, relatively unaltered example of its type”. The policy context contained within the 2018 adopted plan provided the background against which feasibilities were undertaken to assess the redevelopment potential of Parkside in the circumstances where those facilities would need to close. The closure of the site and its redevelopment for other uses has clearly been considered in the past having regard to the allocation and it was also the subject of a Call for Sites submission made in 2019 where representations were put to the Council to amend the description with the plan to read “mixed use for hotel and or housing (including affordable housing) and B1 offices – the capacity to be determined at the design stage”. A feasibility study undertaken by the project team was the focus for a pre-application enquiry with the City Council in late summer 2019 and necessarily considered a range of options in terms of development uses as well as scale and massing. A key issue is of course the status of the police station as a Building of Local Interest and the weight that the Council put on such a designation. From the informal conversations and responses from officers at our meeting in respect in the proposed redevelopment of Parkside, the officers confirmed that the police car park and the gym towards the rear of the site did not fall within the BLI designation and there is no merit in those buildings and structures being retained as part of any new development. With respect to the police station itself the officers stated that if the police station building was retained and reused then it would comply with policy. However, it will continue to be important to further analyse the merits of the BLI status in the circumstances where, for example, the adopted Historic Core Appraisal (Parkside frames one side of Parkers Piece) includes text which states “whilst its architecture is relatively stark a use of dark grey concrete provides a contrast with the gault brick of surrounding buildings, the Police Station was designed to be in sympathy with the scale and rhythm of the regency villas beside it. Today, however, it horizontal emphasis appears in incongruous with its neighbours to the west.”. The Core Appraisal plan shows the forecourt as a poor quality feature notwithstanding the presence of a tree preservation order in the middle of that area. Our client’s view is that this highly sustainable location fronting Parkers Piece provides a hugely significant opportunity for a high quality development to come forward and that one in our view would significantly improve the visual character of the frontage in the circumstances where the removal of the Police Station in its entirety should be considered as a benefit. There are clear differences of opinion in terms of the justification as to the status of this particular building as a BLI and we consider that the opportunity that is presented with this new local plan review provides the authority to reconsider the comprehensive redevelopment of this site with an underlying acceptance that the Police Station does not qualify as a BLI and is thus not considered a constraint to development. Our analysis has looked at the adaptability of a building which was purpose built for police use at that moment in time. The removal of this constraint to the site opens up the possibility for a much more holistic look at the whole of the site and the opportunity to create an exciting new frontage to one of the most attractive local environments within the city. Whilst the existing 2018 Local Plan policy merely refers to the site as being allocated for approximately 50 dwellings, we consider that the site firstly, remains as an allocation but secondly should be the subject of more detailed analysis to enable a more informed policy to be constructed in due course. To that end, there are a few key points which we consider are relevant to the formulation of policy and which have been the subject of discussion as part of the pre-application process: • The reference to approximately 50 dwellings was undertaken to provide only an indicative assessment for the Local Plan. Further more detailed feasibility studies needs to be carried out to assess its real development potential for residential use. • We now have clarity that the car park and the former gym set at the rear of the site have no architectural quality and can be demolished as part of any redevelopment. • It is understood that a hotel use could come forward on the site. Whether this is an apart- hotel – or other form of hotel accommodation is an issue for the market and detailed design but should be considered as an acceptable use. • Having regard to the site’s location, it is absolutely key that a high architectural approach is taken where the scale, massing, details and materials of such a development reflects and provides a sympathetic modern response to the surrounding area.

• 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.

Several policies do not make sense: a. S/8, 9, 10, 11 The criteria and weighting used in determining sustainability of a village, especially when these can deteriorate overtime b. CC/8 Sustainable Drainage is not fit for purpose in many fen-edge villages. c. NH/2 and NH/3 Add nothing to the requirements of NPPF d. H/11 The use of “adjoining” is unnecessarily restrictive; walking distance from the village centre is more relevant. e. H/15 There seems no reason why this should not extend beyond a single property.

I strongly support existing Policy 67 in the current plan with its intention to provide for ‘the protection of Open Space of environmental and or recreational value from development.’ The principle of this policy should be retained.However we are very concerned that the validity of Policy 67 is being challenged by a would-be developer of Protected Open Space relying on a QC’s Opinion claiming the Policy is unworkable, with reference to requirement for relocation of Protected Open Space of recreational value to with 400m of the existing Protected Open Space. The Policy should be so worded, including amendment if necessary to effectively maintain Protected Open Space of environmental and or recreational value.

• 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.

No

Some of these could be made more ‘granular’ to better maintain the character of our area. The following should be considered: Reevaluate ‘permitted development’ in terms e.g. of not permitting smaller front gardens to be paved over and used for car-parking, thus depriving us all of biodiverse, pleasant street scenes and contributions to mitigating Climate Change. Existing front building lines should be retained, preventing construction up to the very front edge of properties for the same reasons.

• 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.

The existing South Cambridgeshire Local Plan policies in respect of the settlement hierarchy are overly restrictive as they prevent new growth from occurring within sustainable village locations. All policies require a more rigorous review of the viability of policies given the potential resulting impacts.

Policy 21 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) allocated the USS site (Site M2) as part of a wider site allocation for mixed-use development, including residential, employment, leisure and open space. USS fully support this policy and site allocation, and encourage the emerging Local Plan to continue to allocate the Site for development.