Question 51: Generic Question

Friends of Cherry Hinton Brook is a local volunteer group established in 2009 in response to concerns about the general poor state of this chalk stream which runs through the city and provides an important green corridor and open space for those who live, work and commute through a part of Cambridge which is particularly lacking in green space. Its aims are: • Maintaining the appearance of the Brook, for example, by removing litter • Raising public awareness about the importance of the brook for wildlife • Improving the Brook as a home for wildlife • Observing and monitoring the wildlife of the Brook and surrounding area • Working with other organisations with similar interests. For 10 years, we have worked to improve the health and appearance of the brook, for the wildlife that lives there and the inhabitants of Cambridge who benefit from it. Despite our efforts and others involved in its management, this important watercourse come under pressure as a result of the rapid growth of the city. The proposed Greater Cambridge Local Plan must there provide a framework that will ensure the following: 1. Given that further housing and related service developments are being planned, it essential that these should not be allowed if they: • Adversely affect the brook and other tributaries of the River Cam, its sustaining aquifers, land liable to flood, and river-side green spaces. • Adversely affect the chemical or biological condition, or the temperature of these waters. • Adversely affect the city wildlife reserves and other nature reserves, woodland and semi-natural open space. 2. In order to maintain the quality and flow of the Brook and associated waterways, all new developments should have the highest standards of water efficiency to minimise the use of water abstracted from the chalk aquifer, including use of rainwater and greywater recycling, and permeable paving. Large new developments should incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems to help water percolate back into the soil. 3. The plan should map a ‘nature recovery network’ as a framework to guide essential development. This should include the Brook and associated aquatic features and, where appropriate, identify new areas for habitat creation and opportunities for linking them together. 4. New habitats must be created in places that help enhance and create the nature recovery network; consideration must be given to the opening the lakes adjacent to the brook, recognising the need for more access to open space. However, it is essential that the ecology, wildlife and ecosystem services provided by the lakes are protected at the same time, which will mean taking a balanced approach to access and management. 5. The green corridor that links Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, through Giants Grave, Cherry Hinton Hall, Snakey Path and Cherry Hinton Brook (with the adjacent lakes), Coldhams Brook, to the Cam is sustained in perpetuity, with appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure protection of the wildlife as weel as sustainable public access and use 6. The necessary research, policy, legislation and mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that water abstraction from the chalk aquifer is sustainable, given the climate change emergency and immediate threat that this is posing to water sources in the Greater Cambridge area.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: I am attaching the comments of Friends of Cherry Hinton Brook to the consultation as requested, using the form provided. However, the box for the Summary would not accept our 100 word summary (we tried many times). I am therefore copying them into this e-mail and would be grateful if you could ensure that they are submitted: • Unsustainable growth (especially housing and related services) that affects the quality and health of the Greater Cambridge chalk streams must be halted • New developments should have the highest standards of water and drainage efficiency • A nature recovery network should be developed that includes the watercourses • Habitat restoration is essential; the lakes if managed appropriately could provide a new open space where nature is managed and protected • The Green Corridor from Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits to the River Cam, along Cherry Hinton and Coldhams Brooks, must be protected. • Solutions must be found to the problem of over-use and abstraction of water.

No uploaded files for public display

I’m emailing as I’ve not been able to leave feedback online on your template. My main concern is the lack of sixth form provision for Cottenham and the villages that feed into CVC, now that they have opted for the Centre School, rather than mainstream sixth form. With the current and ever expanding population, surely this needs attention? The closest sixth form provision is at Impington with the International Baccalaureate but for those wanting traditional A levels, the only option is a very unreliable bus service or possibly the train from Waterbeach to Cambridge, which is also a bit hit and miss. Surely the education of our local and expanding population needs some more local input? My second concern is the amount of new housing that seems to be coming to Cottenham. The planning decisions seem flawed in some cases as houses are being built on land where there are current recreational facilities and also on land that is prone to flooding, which will then exacerbate the problem for the established housing. From what I understand, there have been local objections and concerns raised but this does not seem to have been listened to. Also with all the new development will come more people, families and traffic. Linked to my point above..there is not the infrastructure to support this. The primary school is as large as it can be and struggles to cope, there is no sixth form school provision and it currently takes at least a week to get a doctors appointment at either of the 2 surgeries in the village. The Histon Road works will cause more traffic issues and the local roads are already log jammed at peak times. Please consider the impact all the new housing is having, ensure it doesn’t compromise the existing village and ensure you provide the infrastructure and roads necessary to cope with the increasing population.

No uploaded files for public display

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the first stage of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. The consultation document clearly sets out the options for the area in the coming years and notes that it is envisaged that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan will plan for development up to 2041. At this stage, North Hertfordshire District Council does not wish to make any detailed comments about the options that have been put forward in the current consultation document. North Hertfordshire District Council is currently preparing a Local Plan for the period up to 2031. In a Memorandum of Understanding signed in October 2016, it was agreed that there are no significant strategic cross boundary issues which would affect proposed development in the period up to 2031. However, North Hertfordshire has not yet started planning for development in the period up to 2041 and it maybe that cross boundary issues will emerge in planning for development post 2031 in North Hertfordshire and the Greater Cambridge area. Our current Plan examination has required challenging decisions about the expansion of this District’s towns and villages. We recognise that continuous, incremental growth may not be an appropriate strategy in the future. This Council has already resolved to fully explore options for a new settlement in the longer term. We are also aware that a number of authorities in Hertfordshire are likely to be constrained in their ability to meet future development needs. This could result in further outward pressure for growth. The District Council would welcome further discussions about potential longer term cross boundary issues as the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the North Hertfordshire plans progress.

No uploaded files for public display

Transport: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments to the Local Plan. Cambridge Connect was formed informally four years ago to promote sustainable and enduring approaches to public transport in Cambridge. In particular Cambridge Connect proposed a light rail metro network for the city and region with tunnels under the historic city core. Many of these concepts have now been adopted in policies and projects by the GCP, CPCA and others, and we welcome this progress. However, a proper assessment of light rail remains to be completed, and in our view this should be undertaken so that an evidence-based decisions can be taken about infrastructure investments that will form part of the Local Plan. We believe that light rail is the most sustainable and appropriate technology to deliver public transport improvements in the Cambridge region, and we support its inclusion in the Local Plan. We have prepared two substantial documents on the topic and these set out in detail our proposals and the justifications for the approach. The first report is called "Greenprint for a sustainable future" and this report sets out the light rail metro model that we have proposed. We would note that this model continues to evolve as decisions are taken (eg East-West Rail via Cambourne). The second report makes a direct comparison between the proposals for CAM as set out in the CPCA Strategic Outline Business Case for CAM and our own proposals for Cambridge Light Rail. We understand that the CAM proposals are also evolving since the SOBC, and so we expect there will be on-going discussions on these models. The two reports together make the case for investment in a transformative light rail metro system with tunnels in the Cambridge region. This investment would support the community in the face of the extremely high levels of growth anticipated in the region. We also consider that such investment is needed in order to transform patters of transport use in the region away from reliance on the private car and towards a first class public transport system with light rail at its core, but linked to other modes including heavy rail, buses, cars, cycles and pedestrian. Our proposal is for a backbone of high capacity and high quality public transport closely linked to the other modes. We submit our reports for consideration in the formulation of the Local Plan going forward. I would be most grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of our submission. Note: information on Cambridge Connect and collaborating organisations is contained in the reports.

No uploaded files for public display

In an expanding city with large developments already planned like Waterbeach, Bourn airfield, Cambourne and Northstowe is it really necessary to build on green belt? You are proposing a development on such land in Hardwick. This changes the village dramatically, we lose precious countryside, adds far too many cars to an already congrested area and increases C02 emissions dramatically.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: Please don't join up Cambourne, Bourn, Caldecote and Hardwick. Respect the green belt, let us all breathe clean air and protect the natural habitat.

No uploaded files for public display

I fully support the responses to this consultation as put forward by Camcycle.

No uploaded files for public display

Climate change I believe climate change and species loss to be an existential threat to me and my family. Therefore all planning must be skewed heavily to mitigate the threat. It is not so much a matter of "balancing priorities" as the only game in town.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 3.1 Land to the east of Oakington Road was submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation in 2019 and Christs College is continuing to promote the site for allocation in the Local Plan. Description of Proposals 3.2 The site is put forward for the allocation for residential development for around 75 dwellings, open space, associated infrastructure including off site improvements to the footpaths and cycleways into and out of Cottenham, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and enhanced opportunities for the development of biodiversity. 3.3 A Vision Document is enclosed. This presents an understanding of the site and how the site could be successfully developed as a natural extension to the village. It is important to note that the context of the site has notably changed over the last few years. A series of planning permissions have been granted consent and are either now under construction or nearing construction following their reserved matters process. These permissions extend the built form of Cottenham south-westwards along Oakington Road well beyond the south west boundary of the site. The consented schemes also add built form in depth to each side of Rampton Road to the north. In this context, the development of the site would appear as a natural extension to the village and would remain to be set closer to the village than those already approved and within a shorter walking distance of the local facilities. Summary of Technical Work Ecology 3.4 An Ecology Assessment accompanies this representation, prepared following a site survey. It finds that there is no overriding ecological constraint to the development of the site. Further survey work pertaining to bats will be required at a future time in order to ensure appropriate mitigation strategies and timing of any development as appropriate. With good design, development of the site would incorporate opportunities for net gains for wildlife and enhanced biodiversity. Highways 3.5 The highways assessment undertaken in support of these representations, summarises that a resident of the site would be able to access everyday needs living, working and education requirements, by either walking, cycling or by utilising public transport and would not need to use a private car to access these facilities. 3.6 The assessment of visibility splays for the proposed access road provide evidence that the designed access could potentially support a greater level of development in terms of unit numbers. 3.7 The assessment is based on a site capacity of around 75 dwellings and demonstrates that the resulting AM peak hour and PM peak hour vehicle movements are considered to have no detrimental impact on the local road network. 3.8 There is potential to improve and promote sustainable modes of transport in the village including enhanced pedestrian connectivity, through improvements to footpaths/cycleways on Oakington Road. The new residents would enhance the viability and vitality of the existing services. Drainage 3.9 The drainage assessment concludes that the site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone maps and is at very low risk of flooding. 3.10 The assessment provides recommendations to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposals including: ● Integrated and multi-functional SUDS; ● Improvements to water quality, biodiversity, amenity and habitat creation; ● Further ground investigations to determine seasonal variations in ground water levels; ● Shallow surface water drainage features on site; ● Consultation with Anglian Water to determine the suitability of the public sewer running to the north of the site for connection. Heritage 3.11 A Heritage Assessment accompanies the representation, it notes the heritage context, principally forming the Conservation Area and a number of Listed Buildings along with some recorded archaeology. The heritage context does not find any overriding constraint to development of the site, in the manner that has been the case for the recent and nearby developments to the north. Benefits 3.12 It is considered that the development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to the local area, including: ● The opportunity to deliver a substantial amount of affordable housing to help meet the needs of Cottenham and the wider district; ● Locating residential development within one of the District’s largest and most sustainable villages. The site is located approximately 700m from the village centre and is well placed for future residents to be able to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to these facilities and the neighbouring settlements; ● A landowner who wishes to work with the community in order to shape a proposal which meets the needs of and can provide wider benefits to the village; ● Supporting the Cottenham economy, including local shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site and delivering green infrastructure for the benefit of existing and future residents. The site is agricultural land and is of low ecological value. Summary 3.13 The land east of Oakington Road, Cottenham is in the Green Belt; however, the emerging Local Plan will be subject to a Green Belt review. The Issues and Options consultation quite rightly asks whether there needs to be a more balanced approach to the spatial distribution of development and to test whether some development in the Green Belt would deliver more sustainable forms of development, better located to facilities, services and sustainable transport links. In the scenario of a Green Belt Review and policy approach that finds that some development in the Green Belt will form a more sustainable distribution strategy, then development of land east of Oakington Road will provide a well-located development at Cottenham, which is able to provide a foundation for sustainable living. 3.14 The Vision Document finds that the site can accommodate development in a manner that would act as a natural extension to the village and appear wholly in context against the greater extension of the built form of Cottenham to the north of Oakington Road.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 (Additional Information) Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard was promoted to the call for sites process in March 2019. A number of technical documents have subsequently been prepared for the site and are submitted with these representations to the Issues & Options consultation, including a revised Concept Masterplan and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. These documents build on the responses that were received from consultees, particularly with regard to landscape impact, to previous planning applications for the proposed development of this site (application references S/2647/15/OL and S/1783/18/OL) and also has regard to the recently adopted Village Design Statement. The submitted Concept Masterplan demonstrates approximately 160 dwellings could be brought forward on the site in a way that responds positively to these previous comments. Amendments that have been made to the Masterplan include: • The north eastern area of the site has been removed from the proposed development and would be retained in agricultural use; • Revising the disposition of built area and landscaping to break up the development edge; • Including layers of landscape within the development; • Blocks of development are separated by landscaped areas; • There is a central green axis proposed in the northern portion of the site; • Large woodland belts along with large trees are proposed; and • The development would be limited to two storeys in height. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the site is not covered by any statutory or non-statutory designations for landscape character or quality. The site is well contained in views from the south and the west by existing built form and the existing woodland at Papworth Wood. There are more open views of the site from the north and east. The proposed development has been redesigned to address concerns that the Council had in relation to previous planning applications for the site. By way of an illustration, extracts of the masterplans for applications 1 and 2 are provided below, together with and extract of the current concept plan for ease of reference/illustration. Masterplan – Application 1 Masterplan – Application 2 Current Concept Masterplan The redesigned scheme is for a reduced quantum of dwellings, with substantial woodland planting to the northern and eastern boundaries, in keeping with the existing eastern settlement edge to the south. A more conservative approach has been adopted in relation to the proposed site area, with a large area within the north east of the former site now excluded from this proposal, in order to retain the visually most sensitive part of the site in arable use (see Development Principles Plan) . The scheme also provides new woodland connections running east to west, and north to south through the site, helping break up the roofscape of the new dwellings. The Concept Masterplan shows significant areas of open space within new woodland, tree and thicket planting that will assist in assimilating the proposals into the wider landscape, and provide a robust edge to the settlement, like that which exists at present. The open space corridors within the development will break up the development edge and roofline, and will facilitate the retention and creation of footpath connections. Accordingly, development which follows the principles shown on the Concept Masterplan can be accommodated on the site without significantly impacting on the landscape or townscape character of the wider area. As set out in the previous call for sites submission, the proposed development would provide additional housing and affordable housing for Papworth Everard. Currently there is an identified need for 56 affordable dwellings in Papworth Everard for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' December 2018. There are limited opportunities for new housing to be provided within the existing built up area of the village and therefore limited opportunities to provide much needed market and affordable housing. Given Papworth is a sustainable location for growth it is considered that that this site provides a logical and appropriate location to accommodate additional housing. The proposals would deliver the benefits that were associated with the previous proposal for the site including: the delivery of both market and affordable housing, including a range of housing types and tenures, reserve land for a preschool facility; contributions towards primary and secondary school provision; library contribution; contribution for improvements to Papworth Surgery; enhancements to off-site public footpaths; enhancements to bus services to deliver an additional service in the peak hour; contributions towards cycle and pedestrian links between Papworth Everard and Cambourne. Land is also being reserved within the revised masterplan for a scout hut/community building. The proposals associated with the previous application also included a mix of formal and informal open spaces providing a range of recreational benefits for both new and existing residents and these benefits would also be delivered by future proposals for the site. The proposed development would also deliver significant areas of public open space, green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. The protected trees within the site would be retained and significant new woodland planting would take place. Two Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAPs) are also proposed, one located within the northern half or the site and one in the southern half. Both are located within larger areas of open space and in areas in close proximity to proposed or existing recreational routes in order to maximise their accessibility to help create a valuable new community asset for both the new dwellings and the wider area. At detailed design stage, they would be designed to complement their attractive setting by incorporating natural materials, play elements and new landscaping. In accordance with the Council’s Open Space New Development SPD, the LEAPs would be equipped with a minimum of 9 pieces of play equipment that would aim to provide play opportunities for a range of age groups. At the detailed design stage, the play areas would also be designed to take account of the needs of disabled children. The areas of public open space that enclose the Proposed Development to the north and east, together with the new open space corridors that cross the Site in an east to west direction, would provide a substantial new asset for informal recreational activities. This would be bolstered by the proposed area of additional woodland planting to the north of Papworth Wood SSSI. The new areas of open space would also contain a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS), including swales and attenuation basins. The proposed development would also support existing services and facilities in Papworth Everard. Papworth Everard is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in South Cambridgeshire District Council's current settlement hierarchy and therefore sits towards the top of the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Papworth Everard contains an extensive range of services and facilities including a convenience store, hairdressers, fish and chip shop, coffee shop and a restaurant, a primary school, children’s nurseries, post office, library, doctor’s surgery/health centre, veterinary surgery, churches and village hall. Development has also commenced to deliver a bakery, microbrewery and Public House on the former print works site, south of Church Lane. Papworth Hospital was previously the main employer in the village although the facilities and functions of the hospital have now been relocated. The former hospital site is however positively promoted within the adopted plan for future employment generating uses and is currently being marketed as such. The village also benefits from a significant employment area at Papworth Business Park, located at the southern edge of the village. The services, facilities and employment opportunities which exist within Papworth Everard are all reflective of its designation as a Minor Rural Centre and make Papworth a sustainable location for growth. Where people do need to travel out of the village, access is provided to an established bus service which provides connections from the village to Cambourne, St Neots, Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives. The main bus route is provided by the X3 bus. While this service currently provides an hourly service, there are gaps in the timetable during the AM and PM peak hour. As a result it is very difficult for residents of Papworth to utilise this as a commuter service. It was therefore agreed with the operator during the consideration of the previous applications on the site that the development would deliver enhancements to the service to provide additional services in the AM and PM peak hours. In addition to the above, Cambridgeshire County Council are seeking to deliver a cycle and pedestrian link from Papworth to Cambourne. It is the County Council’s intention to deliver a 2m wide cycle path along the eastern side of the A1198 to provide a link between the existing cycle path located north of the A1198/A428 junction, and the existing footpath network at the southern point of Papworth. The County’s programme for delivering this connection are not known at this time, it was however agreed that the previous applications would contribute towards the delivery of this link. When delivered, it will provide a direct cycle link to Cambourne and all of the facilities provided within it. In January 2020 the preferred route options for East West Rail was announced and it was confirmed that this would link existing stations in Bedford and Cambridge with communities in Cambourne, just to the south of Papworth Everard. East West rail plans to connect communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, creating new opportunities and improving quality of life for people across the area by: • Making it cheaper and quicker to get around the area – connecting people to their jobs, homes and families, as well as businesses to their employees, suppliers and customers. • Supporting new housing to make it more affordable – so people can afford to live and work in the area, and businesses can afford to create more jobs and increase productivity. It is proposed that services would run all the way from Oxford to Cambridge before the end of the decade. At the moment it is estimated that the current journey times by public transport could be reduced to: • Around 35 minutes between Bedford and Cambridge, a reduction of 40 minutes compared to the existing bus link. • Around 90 minutes between Oxford and Cambridge, a reduction of around 60 minutes compared to existing rail connections via London. East West rail will clearly bring significant benefits to Greater Cambridgeshire. Whilst the exact location of the proposed station at Cambourne is yet to be confirmed, given Papworth Everard’s proximity to Cambourne and the existing and proposed links that there are between Papworth Everard and Cambourne; the village is in a prime location to sustainably accommodate new development where resident will have a genuine choice of sustainable travel modes to access employment, facilities and services. In addition to East West Rail, Highways England announced their preferred route for the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvements in February 2019. Following this (June and July 2019) consultation took place on their developed route option. These improvements will result in significant benefits including: • Safety: Improve safety at junctions, side roads and private accesses by reducing traffic flows on the existing A428. • Connectivity: The improvements will cut journey times by more than a third at peak times between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet junctions. • Economic growth: Enable growth in jobs and housing and improve connections between people and jobs. • Community: Improve the safety of horse riders, cyclist, walkers and connecting communities. Highways England remain committed to the new road opening in 2025/26. As Caxton Gibbet is located just to the south of Papworth Everard, these proposed improvements will significantly improve accessibility to and from the village, particularly when accessing employment, services and facilities to the west. It is clear from the proposed infrastructure projects described above that Papworth Everard is in a prime location to benefit from these schemes which will improve transport choice and reduce journey times. Papworth Everard, a sustainable settlement already, is therefore in a location within Greater Cambridge that will become increasingly sustainable over the Plan period and should be a key focus for growth in order to ensure that the benefits of these infrastructure projects are fully exploited by the emerging GCLP and that a balanced and deliverable spatial strategy for growth which balances growth on the edge of Cambridge, within new settlements and within existing sustainable villages is provided. In terms of deliverability, land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard is being promoted by a housebuilder that would develop out the site themselves. The site has been subject to two previous planning applications and Bloor Homes Eastern remain committed to the delivery of housing at this site. Should the site be allocated, Bloor Homes Eastern would expect a delivery rate of 60 dwelling per year for a site of this size. The site could therefore be built out within 2.7 years once a start on site was made and therefore within the early years of the plan period.

No uploaded files for public display

Please find attached comments from the Newtown Forum which represents 10 residents associations in the station area of Cambridge City. The website would not allow me to complete the official form so pleased find our submission below. This is based on the experience of residents who have lived in or through many new developments in the City. I appreciate that the response is lengthy but we would appreciate a response to the many valid comments we have made and how they will be responded to. Thank you Response TO CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN FROM NEWTOWN FORUM RESIDENTS’ VIEWS. Newtown is a historic area close to the centre of Cambridge. It has grown as a mixed community, embracing both commercial and residential property, with a strong community spirit. A wide mixture of housing types includes two iconic modern developments – Highsett and Accordia – social housing, and a harmonious mixture of 19th/early 20th - century homes of various sizes, alongside some big new residential and office developments. The University botanic gardens are a unique asset at the heart of the area. The robust community framework faces a number of challenges; - the impact of new developments, some of them very large, bringing more people to the area and generating increasing movements of people and vehicles - traffic volumes generating pollution, noise, and damage to infrastructure and properties - social changes, notably an ageing population, and the growth of tourism and short-term lettings. Against this background; 1. 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. 2. In the light of the evidence collected in this process, the Plan should define the essential social and environmental aims to be achieved, as the immovable constraints within which it will apply. Only when this has been done should the process turn to proposals for any new building. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. No major development should be permitted unless the developer can show that it has done a rigorous stakeholder analysis and 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 recorded 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. 6. Plans should recognise the need to maintain and improve useful open spaces, and create new ones, with clear plans to maintain them. 7. New office developments should provide vehicle parking spaces only for disabled workers. Much of the new developments are owned by foreign investors and is not used to house local residents there do not seem to be proper controls over the use of these properties for air b and b. In CB1 properties plus car parking spaces have been sold to foreign investors who are not using the car parking spaces while social housing on the same site have no access to parking at all, but can see many spare unused spaces. The Local Plan should provide policies for enhancing and maintaining Conservation Areas. Historic buildings should be retained where possible and there should be no adverse impact on the setting and character of surrounding buildings, open spaces or other features, by any development. The character and proportions of buildings should be respected and any changes proposed should not cause any loss of amenity. The Local Plan should provide more stringent requirements for the historic areas of Cambridge to preserve historic buildings and the historic character of areas close to and part of the city centre. Open areas, trees and garden spaces should be retained and protected, especially in densely built historic areas. New office buildings should be carefully regulated in city centre residential areas - eg near to the station and surrounding streets. Blocks should not dominate the skyline or environment. To ensure more sustainable development it would be more appropriate to support mixed development and use vacant office spaces. In all cases of development - adequate infrastructure must be a requirement. Developers must be required to provide facilities, open space and adequate infrastructure and these should be enforced. If there is adequate evidence provided for further development in the region - the preferred option would be to distribute this across the region and encourage sustainable / mixed development with adequate sustainable infrastructure. Traffic plans should be an integral part of the Local Plan. Increasing traffic congestion is a key concern for city residents. Public transport must be adequately addressed providing appropriate infrastructure to the city centre and across the region. The Local Plan should provide adequate guidance for handling increasing tourists - eg bus parking, city centre crowd management etc. The city centre is a valuable historic site and locations such as the market square should be included in the Local Plan. Some sites could be considered to provide leisure facilities such as a sports or arts centre. Community facilities that would benefit the wider local population as well as visitors would be beneficial. From current and previous planning decisions there is concern from residents about the lack of vision and what appears to be a piecemeal and growth-driven interest-led approach to development. It is vital that the Local Plan is coherent and has a unified strategy acknowledging the need to address biodiversity and climate emergencies. These have now been recognised in Council policies, but plans seem to be going ahead which pay only lip service to them. Given that unlimited growth has detrimental effects of increased inequality and un-sustainability and causes adverse outcomes on the character of the city, it is unclear why this is the only option being considered in the consultations. The people most affected by problems caused by growth are the present residents who are being consulted on these problems but not on the cause. There appears to be no investigation being offered to consider limiting growth in the future and this possibility, together with considering other options for development models must be part of the Local Plan. The National Infrastructure Commissions 4 design principals to be addressed when considering new developments stress the importance of human scale, and improving the life for people who live and work nearby, as well as providing a sense of identity for community, and indeed supporting the natural and built environment and enriching the ecosystems. Further densification of Cambridge runs entirely counter to these valid and indeed valuable principles. Schemes such as Marmalade (square?) need to be replicated, where children and indeed all generations can thrive. Air quality in Cambridge is now at such a polluted level , when increasingly there is incontrovertible evidence on the impact of pollution such as by the station or in Brooklands Avenue etc causing stunted growth, with links to lung cancer, triggering cardiac arrest, stroke and asthma. Further densification of Cambridge should not be considered under any circumstances, as future generations will wonder how we managed to spoil and squander the town in full knowledge of the damage aesthetically and to well being to those who live and work in the place'. There is a concern of how this feedback will be used to inform future planning of the City and how these decisions will be communicated back to ourselves as residents.

No uploaded files for public display

I fully support the responses to this consultation as put forward by Camcycle. I would also like to highlight the conflict between growth and successfully meeting the net zero carbon target. The latter is clearly more important as there will be no growth, or indeed people, if we don't solve the climate crisis. Personally I am happy to make extreme changes to my lifestyle to give my children a chance of a future.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 (Additional Information) 2.1. Land to the east of the A505 was submitted to the Councils’ Call for Site in March 2019 for residential development. A copy of the submission is enclosed at Appendix 1. In summary: • The site is situated on the edge of Royston, and thus adjacent to a large urban centre with its attendant services and facilities. • It is located within 2km from the train station (which provides direct services to Cambridge and London) Royston Leisure Centre, primary and secondary schools and other services including doctor’s and dentist surgeries. It is also located within 2.5km of Royston Town Centre. • Access to the site can be provided from the A10 or the established access from the A505 which in turn provide connections to Cambridge, Stevenage the M11 and A1(M). • The site can accommodate approximately 1,500 homes subject to further design analysis and assessment. • The site is located in Flood Zone 1, the area of least risk of flooding. • The site sits above an aquifer ensuring adequate water supply. • The site is not located adjacent to any listed buildings or conservation areas. A Scheduled Ancient Monument ‘Causewayed enclosure and two ring ditches 140m south-east of New Farm’ is located within the site but it is considered this could be protected and incorporated into any design for the benefit and enjoyment of all.

No uploaded files for public display

Well-being & Social Inclusion and Climate Change: Great PLACE – only if RESPECT LIMITS TO GROWTH = REFUTE GROWTH FIGURES NOW. University Colleges traditionally capped numbers to be accommodated to 12,000 undergraduates they could manage to house in City Centre address, conditional upon NO cars, functioning in a closed loop as it were, except for Cambridge citizens paying for their Council Tax services (eg. Waste Disposal etc) as they have Charitable Status. Now the University is massively expanding free-floating, unsupervised International Master Student numbers with no consideration of Housing Pressures, Health needs, psychological support – all borne by Cambridgensians. Tourist Numbers are soaring and Mother Nature (Cam Valley Chalklands) cannot provide enough water For the extra 8.1 million Loo flushes they engender per annum. And this is set to double soon. WELL-BEING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION will be enhanced by distributing hi-tech, virtual enterprise/ research centres OUT of TOWN to surrounding places already on Transport Networks as FECRA so eloquently outlined. CLIMATE CHANGE will prevail so –DONT build on flood plain. DOUBLE NATURE and Biodiversity and PLANT TREES to save water, give oxygen, and serve as New Memory for Cambridge coming back from the climate- warming tipping point. OUR INHERITANCE – Cambridge is in the shape of a wheel with City Centre HUB (Market Square) and SPOKES radiating out. That’s History. OUR LEGACY – Cambridge Growth CAPPED and VITALITY shared out to the surrounding market towns in its Hinterland, equitably, making for a thriving REGION including the Great Fen etc – FITTING for a dynamic, Interconnected FUTURE where CROSS-FERTILISATION OF GROUNDBREAKING ideas, rescuing Mother Nature, International peace and harmony prevail. Otherwise it’s WAR and we will all lose out.

No uploaded files for public display

I have looked at your consultation document ‘Greater Cambridge Local Plan (Regulation 18)’, and regret that the proposals seem to lack important features. In particular, only a few pages of your document deal with infrastructure. We are asked for comment, but without any indication of what the negative effects might be. Long-distance travel aspirations are shown in fig 22, and the proposed CAM is mentioned at 5.2.2. Para 5.1 implies that the future balance of development is wide open, which is disingenuous. Terms such as ‘Urban Area’ and ‘Edge of Cambridge’ are meaningless in a small city – in many cases housing already crosses the city boundary, so ‘edge of Cambridge’ implies eroding what was once the Green Belt. The consultation indicates that a significant number of new houses may be built on the Marshall’s site, particularly toward the latter end of the Plan (para 5.2.1). This is likely to have a major effect on traffic on Newmarket Road, for example. Of more particular concern is the focus upon housing and jobs without considering either the commercial environment, or where those jobs will be. You claim (para 4.7) that ‘202,155 vehicles cross the outer boundary of Cambridge in either direction every day’. The figure is presented as a fixed amount, is incorrect, and in any case it masks the variations. It will have little meaning to most people. It is only by an objective look at the broad picture, and then analysing the detail that we can begin to understand what is truly happening in Cambridge, and thus how to avoid making the same mistakes again and begin to deal with the problems. To demonstrate the point, Figure 1 shows the travel pattern on Newmarket Road for each hour of the day, each day of the week, for nine weeks from 3rd June to 4th August 2019. There are clear differences between weekend and weekday travel patterns. Each group of seven columns indicates the number of cars per hour passing a sensor. The first group represents the first hour of the day (00:00 – 01:00) and so on. By the seventh hour (06:00 – 07:00), it can be seen that on weekdays, a little over 500 cars pass the sensor each day, but only 200 on a Saturday and 100 on a Sunday. The important point, however, is that peak inbound traffic is on a Sunday. Between 09:00 and 10:00 some 700 cars pass the sensor, many more than at any other time in the week. Similarly, there is a Sunday peak outbound, between 14:00 and 15:00 (approx 690). This is only just outstripped by the Friday peak hour 15:00 – 16:00. It can be demonstrated that this is because the concentration of large stores on Newmarket Road are attracting car users at the weekend. The Local Plan must consider not simply housing, but also commercial aspects such as the placement of such large stores and their effect upon local traffic. To increase the number of houses in the area of the present airport without considering not just the weekday commute, but other activities such as shopping is potentially to cause gridlock, and hence even more loss of time and potentially pollution. Weekend gridlock will affect not only those trying to reach the stores, but those attempting to enter and leave the housing on the airport site. Fig 1a – Traffic inbound, cars per hour, by each hour of the day, Monday – Sunday Fig 1b – Traffic outbound, cars per hour, by each hour of the day, Monday - Sunday We, who live in the city, have to endure the combined effects of development. What is needed for a Local Plan is a top-down, overall, consideration of the effects in combination. The decision-making process must be wide ranging. Furthermore, raw data is withheld from the public and simply released when it supports a particular case. If we are to build a vibrant city for the next generation the authorities should engage with residents in the City, and make available information collected at public expense so that those who have lived, worked and brought up families in the City public can engage in analysis and meaningful discussion, rather than being spoon fed selected information designed to make a point.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 Trinity College Cambridge as custodian of Cambridge Science Park have already submitted via the previous call for sites 163ha of land located to the north of Cambridge, adjacent to the Cambridge Regional College, north west of Cambridge Science Park, and between the villages of Histon and Milton. Cambridge benefits from an incredibly successful Research and Development based economy. Indeed, Cambridge is home to companies that are famous for innovation. Trinity College through its development and nurturing of Cambridge Science Park has always been a pioneer in terms of supporting growth in Science and Technology in Cambridge. Innovation involves a high degree of risk; in particular, the risk that products may not perform in the real world in the same way they did in the laboratory or workshop. Often products need to be redesigned, re tested and adapted to meet the needs of the market. Moreover, in order to stay ahead of their competitors, research intensive companies need to implement a programme of continuous innovation. Already, a number of Technology companies manufacture close to their research base where changes in design can easily be implemented and new product ideas rapidly prototyped and tested. This is already becoming an increasing trend particularly in the case of the low-volume, high value products such as robotics, medical devices, electronics and batteries - areas where Cambridge leads the world. Whilst there is a good supply of premises suitable for undertaking product research, when it comes to high quality, affordable manufacturing and testing space, there is a significant shortage. This type of employment typically needs to operate from larger buildings with more of a quality industrial nature and do not readily operate from the stock of offices and laboratories currently available within the local market. There is now a shortage of suitable manufacturing and testing space in the Cambridge area and the existing Cambridge Science Park. This is in part due to Cambridge’s success in providing the right conditions for Research and Development organisations to grow, however this has resulted in increasing office and laboratory values; while significant areas of potential new land has also been lost as a result of past and proposed housing development and allocations. This shortage means companies are being forced to undertake their manufacturing in other regions of the UK or overseas. The geographic distance between their research and manufacturing facilities can negatively impact business performance Crucially though, without these manufacturing companies in Cambridge, there is a shortage of job opportunities for people who want to work in a technical or engineering environment but do not have the qualifications to undertake the roles that require a university degree. Opportunities that could benefit students at the Cambridge Regional College and North Cambridge Academy. If Cambridge can supply the manufacturing space required by these companies, a new category of jobs could be created. This would help to close the inequality gap in the city, and help lift families out of poverty, particularly those in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development such as Arbury and Kings Hedges. The site is extremely well linked to existing public transport corridors, located on the existing guided busway to Northstowe and within close proximity to Cambridge North Railway Station. The recently published consultation for CAM includes a Cambridge Science Park North stop, which Trinity College Cambridge supports and wholly endorses as a forward-thinking approach to infrastructure provision. The quantum of housing coming forward within walking, cycling and public transport corridors (circa 43,600 to 2031), provides future employees with sustainable travel to work options. The land identified is close to the current Cambridge Science Park and can be easily physically linked allowing Trinity College Cambridge to nurture and encourage this addition as it has done for the existing Science Park for the last 50 years. This custodianship provides a level of certainty to both the Local Planning Authority as decision maker, the neighbouring residents, as those likely to be directly affected as well as ultimately the end users of the site. The land (referred to as Cambridge Science Park North within these representations) is located within the Green Belt and therefore requires a considered strategy for release to enable expansion to occur. The proposal seeks to secure high-level innovation, cutting edge technology and the most modern physical environment designed within an enhanced landscaped scheme providing accessible open space to both employees, students and neighbouring residents. As supported by the Government’s Industrial Strategy. The expansion land would be designated primarily for skilled manufacturing and development. Cambridge Science Park is an existing nucleus of innovation, research and technology; the expansion land will be designed for collaboration and rapid commercialisation of products developed within the existing Science Park environment and the wider Cambridge Market. Trinity College Cambridge are exploring opportunities to ensure that this location within Cambridge can continue to attract talent through educational institutions including both Cambridge University, but also fostering new links with Cambridge Regional College through the provision of both space and facilities combined with apprenticeship opportunities. Indeed, our work to date suggests that Cambridge Science Park North could provide the catalyst for an additional 275-375 apprenticeships per year directly created in line with the Cambridge average, or potentially a total of 715-975 apprenticeships per year generated in line with the average for the East of England1. The site was submitted as part of the previous call for sites, however for ease of reference additional information is included within the vision document included within these representations. 1 See Volterra Report

No uploaded files for public display

Housing: Everything_ has to be about taking decarbonisation seriously. We only have 10 years to halve emissions now and that _really_ concentrates the mind, when the process of new rulemaking takes half that time. Don't be afraid to be radical - the time for gentle incremental change slipped by some time ago. A low carbon future is not all about sacrifice. People _like_ living in a place with lots of cycling, clean air, an actual community where people know each other because they do things locally, not 30 miles away, and see each other walking or on bikes, not hidden in cars. People _like_ living in passivehouses which are warm, not draughty, have good air-quality, clothes dry really fast even indoors, and they don't overheat in summer, have tiny energy bills, and don't pollute the outside air. People _like_ living somewhere you can easily get about by foot, bike and tram/bus/train with reliable journey times. over the long term all these things are cheaper than the high-carbon long-distance world we have currently made. I would question the current requirement for growth above all else. I realise this is sent down from on high, but it makes decarbonisation much harder. Some pushback about why so much growth should a) occur at all, b) occur here, is in order IMHO. Growth is not an end in itself. Decarbonisation and a happy populace (achieved by attaining a decent basic standard of living (housing, food, healthcare, education, purpose) are actual ends. Happiness is _not_ increased by ever-more stuff, travel and money, a shas been shown over and over again. I wold commend 'Doughnut Economics' by Kate Raworth as a text all planners and rule-makers should have read and understood, along with 'There is no Planet B' by Mike Berner's Lee, and 'What do we do Now' by Chris Goodall which all explain the limits of our earthly resources, along with ways in which we can happily live within those limits. 1) Building standards must be passivehouse (or very similar) for all new buildings: both domestic and commercial/industrial. Resist the attempt of central govt to remove the ability of local councils to set higher standards than basic building regs (which the 2020 regs consultation shamefully included, whilst also effectively lowering standards c.f. 2013 buiding regs). Brussels did this in 2015 and now it's normal. Our housing decarbonisation problem is already huge (600TWh/yr of energy goes on heatin, vs. only 250 TWh/yr on electricity generation) and every new house we build which is not _very_ low energy _and_ with low embodied emissions is just adding to that massive problem. A lot of building is proposed here. It has to be <15 kWh/m2/yr or thereabouts. Incentives for people to live in houses that are not excessively large are also important (perhaps with council tax), as PH says nothing about that. Considered over the lifetime of a building energy use _including embodied energy_ is reduced all the way up to 1.05m of insulation thickness! So there really is justification for much better insulation and especially airtightness than current building regs. https://passipedia.org/basics/energy_and_ecology/embodied_energy_and_the_passive_house_standard Remove the veto of conservation officers. Ultimately in a climate emergency it is morally wrong to tell people they can't upgrade their glazing because it looks different, or making people spend twice or 4 times as much money or severly limiting the rertofit level they can achieve for largely visual reasons. Obviously the look is a _consideration_ when granting planning permission, but at the moment conservation officers petty much get a veto over retrofit action, and they shouldn't. Retrofit is already difficult and expensive enough without insisting that things can;t change, buildings can't be rendered or EWI, windows have to remain as stupid sashes, just because thet's how they did things 130 years ago. Windows have got a _lot_ better in 150 years. U=0.7, airtighness very good, rather than U=5, airtightness not at all. There are many people that could do retrofit (they have the money) but are not well-served by providers (builders, designers, assessors). Not strictly a local plan issue, but we really need to fix this, and quickly. Anything tha tcan help here I support. Self-builders make _much_ better housing than large-scale builders, because they care how much it costs to run. Probably the most effective thing the local plan could do would be to require/allow/enable a majority of houses to be self-build plots, not built off-plan from frankly useless developers making car-based, high-carbon rabbit-hutches. The 'everything must be passivehouse' rule could make this less necessary. Certainly one or the other is needed. Housing cannot be gas-heated in future, so it's all passivehouse with no heating or electric or hydrogen, or hybrid-hydrogen heating in the future. retrofit of existing buildings is a _much_ harder problem in which hydrogen is likely to play quite a large part.

No uploaded files for public display

2) I support everything that Camcycle put in their response on cycling: https://www.camcycle.org.uk/images/blog/Camcycle-Local-Plan-key-points_FINAL.docx Just pretend that I typed all that into my responses please. I've read it carefully and don't disagree with a word of it. I want to see a radical motor traffic reduction in Cambridge itself. The segmentation system used in Groningen, Utrecht and most recently Ghent (and started in the very centra of Cambridge, but not expanded) seems to me to be an excellent start. This removes all through-traffic and transforms a town for cycling and for living in. Another option is the 'edge-control' used in Zurich(?) where not too many vehicles are allowed into the city at once so it doesn't bung up for bus travel (and car travel). The queues are relocated a mile or so further out of town. Cambridge Assessment provides an excellent example of moving to an office with very little parking and strong incentives for sustainable travel: Staff parking costs money per month, middle-aged ladies encouraged back on their bikes, well placed for access from Rail, Bus and cycleway. They should be copied.

No uploaded files for public display

Transport: 3) Our existing transport local plan only gets us 55% decarbonisation by 2050. That is hopeless. Much more attention needs to be paid to freight, and the areas beyond Cambridge itself where we can at least see _how_ we could decarbonise. Serious thought is required to change how things are done in the more rurual areas, otherwise we will fail. There needs to be significant expansion in charging infrastructure - many villages in Fenland have no public charging infrastructure. Transport in general is a very complicated matter. Overall I find what Cambridge Smarter transport says on this matter to be very sensible, and I support their response to you. I would love to write a great deal more over several hours, but have run out of time. Apologies for this rather perfunctory response.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 3 Planning Practice Guidance2 provides advice on the role of the Green Belt in the planning system. The guidance states that ‘ w here it has been demonstrated that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, strategic policy - making authorities should set out policies for compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the remaining Green B elt land. These may be informed by supporting evidence of landscape, biodiversity or recreational needs and opportunities .’ Cambridge Science Park North is being developed as a location that can provide compensatory improvements to a substantial (circa 90 hectares) area of remaining Green Belt land providing: • A network of new green infrastructure; with links to Milton Country Park, Histon & Impington, and Arbury and Kings Hedges. • Woodland planting of sufficient scale to provide meaningful woodland carbon capture3; • Landscape and visual enhancements taking existing agricultural land and creating a valuable green asset for communities and employees. • Improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and the introduction of natural capital to an area of low ecological value agricultural land. • New and enhanced walking and cycle routes, linking into the planned improvements to Mere Way; and • Improved access to new recreational and playing field provision. These proposed uses are all entirely compatible with both the purposes of the Green Belt and uses which are deemed as appropriate within the Green Belt4 i.e. material changes in the use of land for outdoor sport and recreation. 2 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, published 22 July 2019 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 64-002-20190722 3 The Forestry Commission suggests that a new native woodland can capture 300-400 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per hectare (tCO 2e/ha) by year 50, and 400-500 tCO 2e/ha by year 100. 4 In accordance with NPPF paragraph 146e

No uploaded files for public display

We would like to see the Cambridge Lawn Tennis Club, the Emmanuel College Playing Fields and the West Fields remain protected green spaces in the next Local Plan. Every protection should be given to the Adams Road Bird Sanctuary, a City and a County Wildlife Site that relies on the buffer of mature gardens surrounding it and the security of the water flowing into it. At present, there are no public green spaces in the area covered by our membership so it is crucial to protect and develop the spaces that currently exist and to create green spaces where possible. As residents, we see daily that city infrastructure is lagging well behind the growth that has already been permitted. We query the assertion that high continued growth is necessary or desirable. We are being presented with the case for further growth as a given without supporting data. Poorly managed growth has lead to increased inequality in the city and problems with pollution, congestion, and environmental loss. It is not at all clear that the city’s water supply can support continued growth. Ironically, at a time of massive growth, we see our city centre diminishing. It is unclear how the proposed growth tallies with the Council’s commitments to acting on the climate emergency. The next Local Plan should include ways to better manage and benefit from tourism. It is not possible for us to comment in more detail on behalf of our membership owing to the large number of consultations we are doing our best to engage in at present. Individual responses have been encouraged, but the volume of information to review is daunting.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 11. As outlined above, Land at North of Cambridge Road (A1307), Linton, is being promoted for allocation for circa 85 dwellings, open space, landscaping and new vehicular access point from Cambridge Road. A Site Location Plan and Indicative Masterplan accompany this representation. 12. The Site is well related to the Linton Village boundary and is already connected to the village by two public footpaths running through the village green and Mill Lane. The Site is located north of the A1307 (Cambridge Road) which denotes a clear southern boundary and as such constitutes a logical and sustainable location for an extension to the Village. 13. The designation within Policy H/6 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (SCLP) to not allow windfall residential development south of the A1307 even within the Linton Village Framework is a clear acknowledgement that land north of Cambridge Road is more sustainable than development within the village framework to the south. The SCLP identifies that the southern part of Linton is severed from the rest of the village by the A1307 which makes it difficult to safely and easily access the services and facilities in the centre of the village. 14. The Site is not limited by any of these constraints and therefore provides the opportune location to accommodate growth to the south of the Linton which is unable to take place within the village framework south of the A1307. 15. Additionally, consultation on the emerging plans for the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) indicate that Linton will be served by its own stop which would make the settlement an optimum location for additional growth moving forward. 16. The supporting technical reports demonstrate that there are no designations or technical considerations which would justify the Site being considered unsuitable for development. The finding from these can be summarised as follows: Transport 17. Transport Planning Associates (TPA) have undertaken an Access Appraisal which considers the key transport related matters for the Site including the identification of achievable and appropriate access to the Site for both vehicular and non-vehicular modes. 18. The proposed access arrangement is shown in drawing number 190205/SK02 appended to the Access Appraisal. This demonstrates that the Site could accommodate a priority T-junction which will allow for safe entrance and egress without prejudice to the delivery of the proposed Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership scheme for the A1307. 19. The appraisal highlights that the site can be accessed by all necessary transport modes and is appropriately located to local amenities, facilities and services to encourage travel by sustainable modes. 20. Overall, the site is found to be highly suitable for a future residential allocation, given its accessibility to nearby facilities via sustainable modes of travel, and suitability in regard to its contextual location as an existing part of Linton and the site being an obvious extension of existing residential areas within the village. 21. A full copy of the Access Appraisal and supporting appendices is provided at Appendix 3 of this representation. Flood Risk & Drainage 22. The Site is covered by areas of Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, however the Indicative Concept Masterplan shows that the proposed layout of the development seeks to, as far as possible, locate dwellings outside the higher Flood Risk areas. An extensive land buffer is provided to the River Granta to allow for flood mitigation and drainage infrastructure. 23. A Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy Report has been prepared by TPA and enclosed at Appendix 4. 24. The assessment provides a comprehensive and robust analysis of the flood impact of the development upon other adjacent properties and of existing flood mechanisms on the development itself. 25. The report notes that the underlying soil type is considered to be compatible for using infiltration techniques as a way to manage the surface water drainage runoff. However, specific on-site infiltration testing will be required to confirm whether the existing Site ground conditions are compatible for the storage of groundwater. 26. Should the on-site infiltration testing demonstrate that the storage of groundwater is not a viable method for the management of the surface water drainage runoff, attenuation and discharge within the nearest watercourse will be proposed as part of the overall surface water drainage strategy. 27. The report confirms that the ongoing risk of surface water flooding can be mitigated by using conveyance features which will collect and convey this runoff to the final point of the discharge within the proposed SuDS features, where this extra volume will be accommodated. 28. Overall, the report concludes the proposed development is sustainable in terms of flood risk and the management of foul and surface water drainage. Archaeology and Heritage 29. An Archaeology and Heritage Technical Note, prepared by EDP accompanies this submission at Appendix 5. 30. The note confirms that the Site does not contain any designated heritage assets. However, the immediate context is characterised by a number of heritage designations including listed buildings within the village and the Linton Conservation Area which is located along the northern and western edge of the Site. 31. A scheduled monument also lies 300m to the east of the Site but the note confirms that development within the Site would have no potential for any negative effects on this asset. 32. The Technical Note recommends that the northern extents of the Site are retained as open space to preserve both the rural edge to the conservation area and the character of the inwards and outward views. 33. Additionally, consideration of all listed building and important views with potential to be affected by the development on the Site is undertaken and the Technical Note finds that it is likely that any potential effects can be avoided by the sensitive masterplanning of the Site. 34. In terms of archaeology, it is possible that archaeological work within the Site may be required to determine the presence, character and significance of any remains on Site but there is no reason to expect that the Site’s delivery or capacity would be compromised by this work. 35. Overall, it is considered unlikely that archaeological or heritage issues would affect the deliverability and/or capacity of the Site for residential development. Ecology 36. An Ecology Technical Note prepared by EDP considers the ecological sensitivities for the Site and identifies opportunities and constraints which influence its potential to support residential development. 37. This desk study identifies a number of valuable ecological features within or adjacent to the Site but considers that there are no obvious in principle ecological constraints that would preclude development, and which cannot be avoided by good design. 38. The Technical Note recommends that future development proposals maintain their connectivity to the wider area through the Linton Pocket Park and River Granta corridor. 39. Overall, EDP consider that the Site and wider land parcel presents an opportunity to deliver a net gain to local biodiversity and contribute to the conservation objectives for the local priority species on Site as well as ensuring local and national policy compliance. Indicative Concept Masterplan 40. At this stage, the Indicative Concept Masterplan does not set out a proposed mix of dwellings as this would form part of a detailed planning application. However, the size of the site offers the potential to deliver a mix of dwelling types and sizes which would be refined through discussion with the Council to ensure the proposed mix was appropriate to meet local housing need whilst respecting the character of the area. Summary 41. Overall, the Site constitutes a sustainable location for a sensitive southern extension to Linton and there are no technical reasons which preclude development on this Site. Allocating this Site which lies on the edge of an established village (identified as a Minor Rural Centre) with existing services and infrastructure, would deliver much needed housing and is considered to provide significant social, economic and environmental benefits which constitutes sustainable development. 42. Whilst building on the edge of villages as a priority would be a change in direction from greater Cambridgeshire’s current growth approach, change is necessary and inevitable for any authority which is serious about delivering housing.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 3 Whilst the Site is not proposed for designation as a green space or wildlife habitat, the accompanying Indicative Masterplan shows that it is intended to provide extensive publicly accessible green space and habitat for wildlife on the Site.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 The site was submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation in 2019 and Pembroke College is continuing to promote the site for allocation in the emerging Local Plan. Description of Proposals The site is put forward for the allocation for residential development for around 130 dwellings, open space, associated infrastructure including offsite improvements to the footpaths and cycleways into and out of Linton, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and enhanced opportunities for the development of biodiversity. A Development Site Report has been prepared to present an understanding of the site and how a residential development can be formed that is respectful of its edge of village location and heritage context. The eastern edge of the site is formed by an established tree belt that forms a distinct separation between the village and the countryside beyond. The proposal site will remain to the village side of the tree belt and be more closely related to the village than the open countryside. The site would be seen as a natural extension to the village lying on the flatter ground before the land slopes up to the north east. The logic to placing new residential development to the east side of Linton is further supported by reference to the permitted residential schemes to the south of the site, such that the development of the site would represent a logical progression across the eastern edge of the village to deliver a planned entrance, with a greater amount of planting. Summary of Technical Work Ecology An ecological report following a site survey has been prepared, which finds that there is no overriding ecological constraint to the development of the site. With good design, the proposals would incorporate opportunities to achieve biodiversity net gains to meet the targets of emerging local policy. Highways The highways assessment undertaken in support of these representations, summarises that a resident of the site would be able to access everyday needs living, working and education requirements, by either walking, cycling or by utilising public transport and would not need to use a private car to access these facilities. The visibility splays provided assess the indicative proposed access at a scale of 2.4m x 43m to the west and 2.4m x 215m to the east. These visibility splays assume that the existing 30mph speed limit will be extended to incorporate the site frontage. The proposed access comprises a 5.5m width carriageway with a 2m wide footpath leading into the site. The assessment concludes that the peak hour AM and PM vehicle trips generated by the residential development of the site for approximately 130 dwellings, would not have a detrimental impact on the local road network. Finally, the assessment has identified a potential to improve and promote sustainable modes of transport in the village including pedestrian connectivity and bus viability. The site therefore presents a sustainable development opportunity and would be compliant with all transport and highways policy. Drainage The drainage assessment concludes that the site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone maps and is at very low risk of flooding. There are no sources of flooding identified which would impact on the development site nor historic flooding incident associated with the site. The only ‘Main River’ in the vicinity of the site is the River Granta, which is approximately 1km south west of the site. There are no sewers in the immediate vicinity of the site and sewer flooding is not considered to be a significant flood risk to the development site. The assessment concludes that the overall risk of flooding to the site is low with likely practical and sustainable solutions for both surface and foul water drainage. Heritage An Initial Heritage Appraisal accompanies this representation. It explains the heritage context of the site; most notably the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings and the listed Water Tower to Rivey Hill. The assessment finds no reason why the site cannot be successfully developed for residential development. Benefits It is considered that the development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to the local area, including: ● The opportunity to deliver a substantial amount of affordable housing to help meet the needs of Linton and the wider district; ● Locating residential development within one of the District’s largest and most sustainable villages. The site is located approximately 1km from the village centre and is well placed for future residents to be able to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to these facilities and the neighbouring settlements; ● A landowner who wishes to work with the community in order to shape a proposal which meets the needs of and can provide wider benefits to the village; ● Increasing the amount of public open space and play space; ● Increasing the provision of footpaths with the proposal controlling land to be able to provide an additional route between Horseheath Road and Balsham Road; ● Supporting Linton’s economy, including local shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site and delivering green infrastructure for the benefit of the ecology and existing and future residents.

No uploaded files for public display

“the east side of the city offers significant scope for housing and commercial development. Such development would have the advantage of being close to the principal centres of employment and the existing rail infrastructure whilst also opening up opportunities for new transport links to connect the main centres of employment more effectively. Most significantly, it includes land which has previously been safeguarded for development, and is within the boundaries of the existing urban area so would provide opportunities in line with the existing spatial strategy” CPIER p42 No single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary in order to establish the appropriate locations of new housing and employment development in the district. A hybrid approach will be required, but Land north of Horseheath Road, Linton – Issues and Options Consultation 2020 Page 17 underpinned with a focus on transport corridors, accessible areas and those places that can offer the foundation for sustainable living with easy (non-car) access to services and facilities. It is considered that village dispersal should form part of a hybrid spatial strategy. Whilst a village dispersal approach should consider villages from across the settlement hierarchy, it should seek to allocate sites for development at locations in villages which are or can be made sustainable and are supported by a transport corridor. To contribute to this strategy, Linton, a Minor Rural Centre and the eighth most sustainable village in the District (by reference to the SCDC Village Classification Report), is a sustainable location for future development given the range of services and facilities it contains and the committed funds to improve the A1307 corridor.

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 The land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham was promoted to the call for sites process in March 2019 on behalf of Coriolis St Neots Ltd, however please note that the Representations are now being progressed by Gabriel Lau. The representations to the Issues & Options consultation document will refer to that promoted site where relevant.

No uploaded files for public display

Foxton should retain its Group Village status under the new Local Plan. Any development proposed should be in keeping with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan which places emphasis on the housing needs of affordable starter homes as well as bungalows and houses suitable for village residents to downsize yet remain in Foxton. The indication of 2900 new homes a year needing to be built in the Greater Cambridge area up to 2040 will put great pressure on the existing Green Belt. Foxton Parish Council is keen to see that this vital area is not ‘nibbled away’ at by developers. Clear policies must be set out in the new Local Plan to prevent irreversible damage along with ensuring that local residents’ views are sought and considered. The ‘necklace’ of villages around Cambridge city could be in danger of considerable change if strong developmental and design policies are not created. Foxton, having a railway station, could be targeted by developers, especially if the current Local Plan 5 year housing buffer fails. The whole character of the village would change if developmental protection is not fully considered and implemented in the new plan. A suggestion for increasing the green spaces provision in Foxton, so lacking in South Cambridgeshire, has been submitted separately. Any plans for housing growth must align with the aims of the Greater Cambridge zero carbon targets by 2050. New development and design policies should closely reflect this along with ensuring that measures are put in place to ensure developers abide by the rules. To this end it is vital that Greater Cambridge planning department is robust and fit for purpose with a full strength of planning officers and systems in place to ensure planning applications are dealt with in a speedy yet democratic manner. Ever closer discussions with Foxton residents and parish councillors will be needed on all planning issues. Transport infrastructure must also align with the ‘green’ policies of Greater Cambridge planners. Foxton has the issue of ever increasing levels of traffic on the A10 plus the level crossing problems. The traffic, pollution, delay and parking have knock on effects into Foxton village and these need to be factored into a much larger plan to encourage less use of cars for the whole area. A Foxton station ‘car park’ as currently proposed by GCP only looks at the issue in isolation. A network of inter connecting local village cycle ways (to Thriplow, Fowlmere and Newton for example) is just one possible view of the bigger transport picture. Other infrastructure issues which need to considered alongside housing development, are increased doctors’ surgery provision, water consumption, sewage and power. Foxton already has issues from Anglian Water having to regularly pump waste water away by road tanker from the water treatment stations in the village and on the A10. It begs the question –is the system fit for current purpose, never mind future local housing needs? Foxton would welcome some new employment opportunities in the village, but again these must conform to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan policies and residents must be fully consulted. Finally we would request that one of the ‘pop up roadshows’ comes to this area. There has been no provision in the whole locality for the A10 villages including Foxton, Fowlmere, and Melbourn. Even Bassingbourn has been left out.

No uploaded files for public display

Summary of Comments: 1. Retention of Group Village status 2. Concern for green belt erosion 3. South Cambs village settlement pattern 4. Foxton railway station issues for development 5. Recognition for gradual growth along with transport infrastructure needs 6. Foxton employment needs

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 - Additional Information 2.1 This representation refers to two adjoining sites. The smaller site comprises about 0.4ha to the north of Craft Way suitable for up to 4No. dwellings. It is bounded by a public right of way to the west beyond which is the curtilage of a listed residential dwelling known as No. 40 Hay Lane – sometimes referred to as ‘Two Trees’. It’s boundaries to the north and east are to the curtilage of No. 60 Hay Lane which comprises the second site subject to this representation. The site is presently unused and overgrown, characterised by a dense scrub of mainly self sewn woodland. 2.2 The second site has an illustrated capacity of 21 dwellings in addition to the retention of the existing residential property. It is also accessed in full from Craft Way and would enable the present driveway from Hay Lane serving the existing dwelling to be used solely as a pedestrian connection. The land comprises mainly residential garden although the parcel to the south of the house and adjoining Craft Way comprises a grassed paddock. 2.3 As illustrated, the scheme could provide a mixture of house types including detached and semi-detached dwellings and would provide the airport’s mix of tenures. If allocated in conjunction with the smaller site, the proportion of affordable dwellings would be calculated on the basis of a total of 25 dwelling units. 2.4 The boundaries of the larger site are to Craft Way to the south, existing residential curtilage to the west and to the curtilage of a large gated development of flats known as Woodland Grange to the north. The eastern boundary is to the grounds of a large but unlisted house at Brook End. As a result, the two parcels do not have a common boundary with open countryside. 2.5 The larger parcel is wholly excluded from the conservation area save for the present entrance drive. Both can be developed independently, or together retaining their existing boundaries supplemented by new landscape planting. As such development could reflect a sympathetic design in relation to the surrounding context in regard to structure, form and character in the settlement, enabling the development to seamlessly integrate into the existing development. Specifically, any development would not affect the setting of the listed building which is to the west of the public right of way and would not give rise to overlooking of the grounds of that dwelling or of No 60 Hay Lane to the north east. 2.6 A new access can be achieved from the site onto Craft Way, with suitable visibility splays achievable in both directions. 2.7 Particular attention can be paid to matters of access, to the relationship with the site boundaries and public rights of way which follow the western and northern boundaries, but which are outside the site limits. In addition, the wildlife and woodland designations and the proximity of the listed buildings can be taken into account to ensure that any impacts are mitigated against through means of design. 2.8 The site is free from constraint, available and deliverable and would not adversely impact on either the existing neighbouring dwellings or the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area.

No uploaded files for public display