Question 51: Generic Question
Framework 1. Trying to answer the question “how much development can be sustained” is not the right approach. Even more so, the right question isn’t “how much building is needed.” The right way forward is to clarify the parameters within which any future building will be undertaken, and to put mechanisms in place to ensure that they are respected. Evidence 2. An essential starting point for the Plan is to collect evidence about the social and environmental impact of the building that has already happened or is committed, to help understand the possible future impacts of any extra building beyond what is already committed under the current Plan. This process of evidence-gathering must engage all interested parties, including residents’ groups. Setting limits 3. In the light of the evidence collected in this process, the Plan should define the essential social and environmental aims to be achieved. There should be no prioritisation between the themes listed on the website; an effective plan needs to secure benefits in each of the theme areas, which will often be to improve upon the current position. Some of the presentations to the 18 February debate are a good starting point for identifying what the Plan needs to achieve. The need to achieve these aims should be the immovable constraints within which the Plan should develop. Only when the social and environmental constraints have been identified should the process turn to proposals for any new building, which will need of course to be demonstrated to respect the constraints. Housing 4. As regards housing, this process will identify a range of requirement about the nature and location of new building. But it is particularly important that plans for new housing should reflect the needs of a mixed community – not just new workers - and promote integration (particularly of older people and a range of income groups) – eg through a mix of tenures and housing types which avoids ghettoisation. Offices 5. Any new office developments should be permitted only if a real need can be demonstrated. Strong planning conditions should be imposed that require developers to be good neighbours – eg improving local infrastructure, providing social resources, limiting the use of motor transport, funding improvements for cyclists and walkers in the neighbourhood, and moderating impacts in the build phase. And new office developments should provide vehicle parking spaces only for disabled workers. Consultation and engagement 6. Real stakeholder engagement in individual development proposals should be mandatory. No major development should be permitted unless the developer can show that it has done a rigorous stakeholder analysis and then has engaged with all identified local interests before submitting a planning application. To aid transparency, all discussions, formal or informal, between Councillors/ Officers and developers about planning proposals should be catalogued on the City Council’s website. All major developments should be overseen by consultative groups involving local interests as soon as planning permission is granted. These measures do not need to wait for the new local Plan to be adopted; they could be implemented now. Open space 7. The Plan should recognise the need to maintain and improve useful open spaces, and create new ones, with clear plans to maintain them.
No uploaded files for public display
Be bold about discouraging car use. Create small green spaces for people not vehicles within urban places. Actively, enthusiastically and creatively encourage cycling and walking in part by linking bike routes in the developments with existing routes to create routes across the city. We will not radically reduce our carbon unless we are bold.
No uploaded files for public display
RESPONSE FROM THE HOBSON’S CONDUIT TRUST Hobson’s Conduit Trust (HCT) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan by commenting on issues and options raised in the current consultation document. Hobson’s Conduit Trust is the charitable body whose primary purpose since 1610 has been to ensure that the flow of water in Hobson’s Brook and Conduit is unimpeded and that it is maintained in perpetuity. A body of trustees, now the HCT, has the responsibility to ensure that maintenance is adequately undertaken. The HCT took over the management of funds for the benefit of the water supply from feoffees from the town and university in 1868, when ‘The Conduit Trust’ was registered. The whole water course, from Nine Wells, along Hobson’s Brook, down the Trumpington Street runnels and through the pipework to the colleges has great heritage value on local, regional and national scales. It is one of the great historical monuments of Cambridge. Its above ground sections also have great local and regional biodiversity and scenic value, particularly in the light of the brook’s character as a rare chalk stream. The Brook forms an important green corridor in the city, linking the city centre at the north end with the open countryside at Nine Wells at the south end. The whole length of the Hobson’s Brook and Hobson’s Conduit system lies within the Greater Cambridge area.
No uploaded files for public display
Wider context In the wider context of the Local Plan other similar watercourses around Cambridge such as Cherry Hinton Brook and the Bin Brook should be similarly protected. Particular care should be taken not to further encroach upon or cause any further stress or damage to the tributary streams of the rivers Cam and Great Ouse within the Greater Cambridge area.
No uploaded files for public display
We need viable infastructure
No uploaded files for public display
Prioritizing the expansion of cycling infrastructure directly contributes to all 4 themes in the Local Plan.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2. Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Question 2 Comments: • Development sites must support the sustainable transport goals of shifting the vast majority of everyday travel out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. • If it is not possible to produce a realistic Transport Assessment achieving that goal, then the site must be rejected. • It is important that sustainable transport is not only considered within the site but also the connections to the transport network and other sites.
No uploaded files for public display
Waterbeach surgery cant deal with the amount of people living in the village, making it difficult to get an appointment. A10 and Horningsea Road congestion are a major problem. It can take 45 - 60 minutes to get through traffic.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 Comments: The current nationally framed planning system in relation to housing is so skewed against the provision of adequate forms and quantities of affordable that we should try resist the inclusion of any housing sites in our local community’s planning framework. Consequently we should rely exclusively on the rural exception site system to deliver housing in communities like Histon and Impington. By this means we at least have a chance of better control over the nature and quantity of the critically needed affordable housing that should be developed. For communities to get behind this element of strategy it would also be necessary to given them confidence in the short term development and long tem management of such sites. The principal means of doing this should be by truly local entities – Community Land Trusts. The local plan should recognize and give some encourage and protection to, CLTs in order that these nascent organisations can stand a fair chance of achieving anything, against non local providers. The Affordable Housing SPD may be the place to do this . The requirement on the District to deliver national housing targets should be done through planned new communities, ideally on (ex military) brown field sites.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 3: Please submit any sites for green space and wildlife habitats you wish to suggest for consideration through the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible Q3 Comments: Neighborhood Plans should be the principal means of identifying and justifying these.
No uploaded files for public display
Railfuture response to consultation the themes of: • Climate change: the railway is most sustainable way of moving larger numbers of people safely and at speed. Its co2 emissions are low compared to all other modes as are particulate emissions. All new and existing development should be linked to existing and new railway stations development by a network of well designed footways and cycleways. The new document must recognise the importance of railway travel and actively plan the urban landscape to accommodate the tracks and stations. (Residents moving to the railway edge must be be informed that the railway has permitted development rights and movement is 24hour. The greater good is that the railway is the by far the most sustainable mode and will help bring CO2 emission down to zero.) Delivery of goods within the urban realm must be sustainable and through the development of consolidation centres which must be developed at railfreight centres. • Biodiversity and green spaces: railway corridors have to be carefully managed for safety reasons but they do provide wildlife corridors and green spaces that relatively are free from human acitivity enabling the wild and natural freedom to develop and thrive. • Wellbeing and social inclusion: active travel, walking and cycling, to the nearest railway station or bus stop to access the railway station, will promote better health outcomes. A majority of citizens are currently denied many job opportunities as well as access to green spaces whether country parks, National Trust properties such as Wicken Fen, Wimpole Hall, owing to no access to to personal transport. Development of well planned access routes to the railway station will enable much greater social inclusion. • Great places: great places can only developed if freed from having to cope with majority car and other road vehicle movements. The urban realm can only be improved by pedestrian priorities linked to sustainable rail journeys. Options for where we believe this growth might go are: • densification of existing urban areas: this should pursued in a managed way enabling the provision of quality public transport to be up increasingly sustainable. New development especially research facilities should centre around railway stations and associated bus facilities. • edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt: some new development will be required outside the greenbelt but only if connected to quality footways, cycleways to the a railway station / railway line existing or planned such as the new Cambridge to Bedford railway. This provision must be planned in from ‘day 1’. • dispersal: new settlements: some settlements need development to sustain their function. But all development must be an existing or planned railway station. • public transport corridors (expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with new settlements) • It is vital that future developments should be public transport friendly, and in particular rail friendly so we should strongly support the idea of settlements along rail public transport corridors, but densification of existing urban areas also plays well towards public transport. • To support this in conjunction with rail supported by other forms of public transport, cycling and walking. We strongly recommend the development of the bike+train concept in conjunction with segregated foot and cycle ways.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible: Q2 comments: 2 A key challenge going forward is accepting some forms of inequality in the greater interest of the many. Housing needs to be cheaper to “buy” and “operate” which inevitably means smaller, better-insulated, higher-density and closer to places of work (this latter distance can be dramatically affected if we embrace technology, allowing virtual distances to supplant physical distances – an argument NOT to invest in new transport systems that are so costly and disruptive – make the most of what we have); yet there will always be those who can afford more/better – accept it as part of our diverse society. a. Forget strategic new towns and large developments that only really satisfy “wealthy incomers”; do add modest high-density developments to edge-of village locations in a modified Rural Exception Site policy in which up to 100 well-designed compact 1 or 2 bed modular homes equipped with super-broadband and served by a frequent electric community transport service are added to all but the smallest of our villages. b. Complementary to the above, add multi-purpose business/education/leisure/medical centres to each village accepting “100 small homes” to allow te conferencing and co-working necessary to re-vitalise many of our villages for the 21st Century.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 3: Please submit any sites for green space and wildlife habitats you wish to suggest for consideration through the local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q3 comments: Arguably, Cambridge City and District is already over-provided with green spaces, although more could be done to link them together for the wildlife. In this region, a key consideration should be how to use these spaces to provide better flood protection ponds and swales in this flat land in which excess surface water finds difficulty following a safe route to rivers like the Ouse This may involve sterilising much under-productive County land for the purpose.
No uploaded files for public display
Themes • Climate change: with the new railway from Cambridge to Cambourne and St Neots probably being constructed within the next 10 years, the railway network within the subregion and more broadly Cambridgeshire, will serve all the major settlements* within the County and nearby, save Ramsey, Chatteris and St Ives. (The latter is served by the busway.) As the railway is most sustainable way of moving larger numbers of people safely and at speed, with low co2 and particulate emissions compared to all other modes, I suggest that all new as well as existing development, should be linked to existing and new railway stations by a network of well designed footways and cycleways. (In doing so, this new document must recognise the importance of railway travel and actively plan the urban landscape to accommodate the tracks and stations. Residents moving to the railway edge must be be informed that the railway has permitted development rights and movement is 24hour. The greater good is that the railway is the by far the most sustainable mode and will help bring CO2 emission down to zero.) Delivery of goods within the urban realm must be sustainable, through the development of consolidation centres, which must be developed at urban edge railfreight centres. All new research and office development should only be permitted at or near a railway station, as should most new housing. • *Note Cambridge will be linked by train directly or by one change within 45 minutes to these main urban centres: Cambourne, St Neots, Huntingdon, Alconbury, Peterborough, Whittlesea, Wisbech, March, Soham, Ely, Waterbeach, plus Royston and Newmarket. St Ives by the busway. • Biodiversity and green spaces: Generally new developments should be high density but set among well designed parkland of varied from fairly formal to fairly wild. Lakes and riversides should be integrated for all to use not just the few but also bearing in mind the demands of the wild. I will add here that railway corridors have to be carefully managed for safety reasons but they do provide wildlife corridors and green spaces that relatively are free from human acitivity enabling the wild and natural freedom to develop and thrive. • Wellbeing and social inclusion: active travel, walking and cycling, to the nearest railway station or bus stop to access the railway station, the nearby lake, river edge and park will promote better health outcomes. Social inclusion must be paramount as the majority of citizens are currently denied many job opportunities as well as access to green spaces whether country parks, national trust properties such as Wicken Fen, Wimpole Hall, simply owing to having no access to to personal transport. Development of well planned access routes to the railway station and bus stops will enable much greater social inclusion. Of course, social inclusion means that the less mobile must mitigated and provided for in all planning. • Great places: great places can only developed if freed from having to cope with majority car and other road vehicle movements. The urban realm can only be improved by pedestrian priorities linked to sustainable rail journeys and other public transport forms. Great places can be only great places if everybody has access to them, not just those with personal transport, Options for where I believe this growth might go : • densification of existing urban areas: this should pursued in a managed way enabling the provision of quality public transport to be up increasingly sustainable. New development especially research facilities should centre around railway stations and associated bus facilities. Certain low density areas should be made more into a more densely built up area if it apparent the the function of the area has changed. This must be planned but an example might be the low density villas sited along the northeast side of Cambridge Station Road. Green corridors linking to open other planned and existing spaces should carefully zoned into plans for the benefit of the wild but above all the citizens. • edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt: allow some new development will be outside the greenbelt but only if connected to quality footways, cycleways to the a railway station / railway line existing or planned such as the new Cambridge to Bedford railway. This provision must be planned in from ‘day 1’. • edge of Cambridge: generally keep the greenbelt although logically there can be cases made for swops of land to the benefit of settlement and the greenbelt. This should not always be completely static. • dispersal: new settlements: some new settlements are certainly required and but must carefully planned to enable them to become “communities”. But all development must be at an existing or planned railway station to enable the inevitable movement between settlements and the major market, leisure and employment centres to be as sustainable as possible. • dispersal: villages: all settlement must be open (in theory) to everyone. All settlements need services to make them sustainable and to make that happen many settlements will need new housing to enable them to function sustainably. • public transport corridors (expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with new settlements) can only be the way of developing new housing and industry in whatever form, sustainably. So it is vital that future developments should be public transport friendly, that is densely built, and in particular rail friendly. I strongly support the idea of settlements along rail and other strong public transport corridors and densification of existing urban areas also enables strong public transport. • In conjunction with railway station-centred development and supported by other forms of public transport, cycling and walking, I strongly recommend the development of the bike+train conceptat all stations and travel hubs, in conjunction with segregated foot and cycle ways.
No uploaded files for public display
Opening paragraph: Firstly I want to support the response from Trumpington Residents Association (TRA). I broadly agree with all the points they have made. I want to add my own comments as below.
No uploaded files for public display
First of all, I find your local plan consultation document ridiculously complicated for the average resident, me included. The cynic in me would suggest this is a deliberate ploy to stifle responses???? My thoughts Some smaller villages could do with some proportional growth that would hopefully keep or give reason for improved facilities eg shops and buses etc The 2 towns should bare the brunt of the the growth, that is Cambourne and Northstowe. Maybe there is room for a new settlement to the south east of the district? The Green Belt should be protected from development at all cost! Most of the medium size villages (1000 residents ish) would fail on the growth front simply because the facilities are in the village centres so random growth on village edge would fail on the walking (to facilities) sustainability front.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 3: Please submit any sites for green space and wildlife habits you wish to suggest for consideration through the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible: Q3 response: Green Space This question appears to be asking for new sites to be designated for green space and wildlife habitats. There are existing spaces which are already designated as protected. We expect that the continuing designation of existing designated Protected Open Spaces or environmental and or recreational value and WildLife sites . should be carried forward into any new Plan without the need for fresh justification.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 50 - Summary of Comments: Consultation unclear about what is meant at Q3, and therefore is flawed, if each site already protected eg as Open Space or wildlife site under 2018 Plan has to be resubmitted for consideration. Residents would naturally assume such designations would be carried forwatrd but the context here does not make that clear one way or the other. Also not clear how vgreen spaces even if in private ownership but providing green lungs, veiws and vista s are to be protected,
No uploaded files for public display
Question 6: Do you agree with the potential big themes for the Local Plan? Question 7: How do you think we should prioritise these big themes: Joint response to Q6 and Q7: Strongly disagree with 'Big Themes'.These are so vague, over arching and overlapping as to be virtually meaningless. For example, 'Wellbeing and Social inclusion' is surely a subset of building 'Great Places' and would have regard for both 'Climate Change' and 'Biodiversity'. A specific example of this duplication: Good access to public transport is referred to in bullet point 5 of 4.3.3 (Wellbeing and social inclusion) and by implication , bullet points 3 & 4 in 4.1.3 (Climate Change) Big Themes include overlapping issues which make then difficult, if impossible to prioritise. They need to be more sharply defined.
No uploaded files for public display
Summary of Comments: Making it safe and easy for people to cycle is a priority, including at Cambridge railway station where taxis dominate.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2 Comments: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 Response: • Development sites must support the sustainable transport goals of shifting the vast majority of everyday travel out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. • If it is not possible to produce a realistic Transport Assessment achieving that goal, then the site must be rejected. • It is important that sustainable transport is not only considered within the site but also the connections to the transport network and other sites. • Transport cannot be looked at in a silo. Transport, including cycling, is integral to planning of new developments and must be considered from the very start.
No uploaded files for public display
Summary of Comments: Climate change is the most important big theme and improving cycling facilities and public transport is a good way to help address this.
No uploaded files for public display
Q8 Summary of Comments: The College would support the ability to achieve carefully planned and considered on site energy generation within the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2 Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 Response: Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. As indicated in answering Q39, the Green Belt around Cambridge should be reviewed, and where sites currently within the Greenbelt can be developed at high density and with excellent sustainable transport (ie close to major employment sites), those sites should be removed from the Green Belt and the sites developed. This would suggest a number of new sites that could be delivered with many new homes, for example: The West Fields between Grange Road and the M11 – Given the local housing shortage and feasibility of developing this area with excellent walking, cycling and public transport links to key employment sites like the City Centre and West Cambridge site, coupled with its lack of special or notable features beyond ordinary agricultural land, its hard to imagine a better or more appropriate site for new housing, and it should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing. Much of the land between Cambridge and Shelford could be allocated to housing, with a new public transport corridor and cycle network linking to the Addenbrookes bio-medical campus. The field bounded by Long Road, Hobson Brook, the Guided Busway and Clare/Peterhouse sports ground is perfectly placed for housing with sustainable transport. Land between Milton village and the railway could be developed around the proposed rowing lake, within easy sustainable commuting distance of the Science Parks area.
No uploaded files for public display
Summary of Comments: Be more ambitious about growth, in both scale and urgency. We need to get much better at the quality of the built environment and our support for sustainable transport, in particular for cycling and building non-car dependent communities.
No uploaded files for public display
The local plan should allocate a sufficient amount of smaller sites within sustainable village/edge of village locations.
No uploaded files for public display
The Council should plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government.
No uploaded files for public display
The plan should allocate edge of village sites for housing and consider introducing an edge of village policy to allow smaller sites to come forward.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 2. Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 Response: There are no available sites for employment and housing in our Neighbourhood Area.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 3. Please submit any sites for green space and wildlife habitats you wish to suggest for consideration through the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q3 Response: Please find attached our Evidence Base, which includes a number of valued green spaces in our Neighbourhood Area. More broadly, the need to re-wild brownfield sites, maintain the green belt (and enhance its biodiversity wherever possible), is key to making positive gains in biodiversity. We echo the call for a ‘Green Network’ as detailed by the response from Cambridge Past, Present and Future. We also fully support the response from Cam Valley Forum who stress the importance to future proof the areas around the River Cam against flooding and unwise development.
No uploaded files for public display