BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

Skateboarding is under-represented and under-funded. There is a real lack of weather-suitable skateparks in the area. In an effort to protect and promote green space and recreation areas, more facilities are required. These need not be just aimed at skateboarders - they can be multi-purpose pedestrianised areas.

More skateparks are needed in the north of Cambridge. Indoor areas for use in the winter months.

Policy BG/PO is supported in principle, noting that relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Works to the Greenbelt under Policy S/NEC would appear to conflict with this policy. It is currently unclear where this is recognised within the Plan suite to allow informed land use decisions to be made.

Current CCC plan policy 67 is currently not fit for purpose in creating buffer areas around wildlife sites (see the Adam's Road Bird Sanctuary application, refused by committee against officer recommendation). All open spaces, particularly those designated for wildlife, must have a clear buffer as per Wildlife Trust and national standards preventing adjacent damaging development.

Open space must be protected. The recent approved development in Arbury on the open amenity space is the sort of development that should not be permitted.

Add Review Sports lighting and loss of darkness. Impact of LED lighting on natural open spaces, sports fields and clubs, green belt, urban fringes and residential areas.
West Cambridge athletics and tennis clubs make parts of Coton corridor like an airport five / six nights a week from artificial sports lighting. Some until 10 at night oct - March. A more balanced provision needed with better technical cowls and restricted times to four days a week ?
New ALAN biodiversity studies implies negative impacts on insects.
Include & inform Sports groups in research.

strong support

As a result of development at Cambridge East, Marshall predicts there will be no impact on existing accessible open spaces but plenty of opportunity to create new spaces – see next section on Providing and Enhancing Open Spaces.

We agree that the Local Plan should continue to include policies which identify and protect open spaces, including village greens, parks, sports and recreation areas, allotments, community orchards and Protected Village Areas, and Local Green Space. Also, that policy should continue to recognise that in some cases development on open space may be appropriate if it has limited qualities and would lead to overall quality or quantity improvements.

The overall intent and policy direction of this policy is welcomed and supported.

However we note that “It will also need to continue to recognise that in some cases development on open space may be appropriate if it has limited qualities and would lead to overall quality or quantity improvements.” We do not support this approach where applied to private benefit. More green space is needed, as identified elsewhere. We do not believe that a circumstance can exist whereby the only way to improve the quality of an open space is by allowing private development on it. There are other ways of raising funds to support open space improvements. The draft plan should include a policy that any loss of open space to private development must be offset by the provision of at least an equal amount and quality, within the adjacent neighbourhood.

Raising funds or the stewardship of the ongoing maintenance of open spaces is a challenge and an issue of national concern. One of the ways that funds can be raised for this work is through offering the public a service, for example a café in a park. The wording of this policy should allow for developments that would provide a public benefit and support the ongoing maintenance of the open space (eg café).

The supporting text notes:
‘Access to a range of open spaces for different activities, for all ages is an essential part of sustaining healthy communities, supporting the local environment, and encouraging social interaction with local people.’

Open space also performs a valuable function in reducing recreational pressure on other vulnerable sites, especially where there is sensitive wildlife. We comment further on this in respect of Policy BG/EO and the provision and enhancement of open spaces.

Many open spaces also have an important heritage function, either directly or as a contribution to the setting of the historic city and/or individual heritage assets. We would like to see this recognised within the wording of the draft Plan.

We support the protection of open spaces. However, the policy direction should recognise that some open spaces sit directly adjacent to existing developed sites and ‘Other potential development Sites’ within the City Council’s ‘Opportunity Areas’.

These considerations should therefore be taken into account when considering harm to the character of open space where redevelopment of such sites is proposed, including applying balanced planning considerations and the presumption in favour of sustainable development (as required by the National Planning Policy Framework) and the public benefit that may arise from development.

Moreover, the policy direction should allow for the provision of development for schools, colleges and universities, within grounds used for these uses, where it meets a demonstrable educational need, as set out in the last paragraph of Policy 67 of the adopted Local Plan.

The RSPB supports a policy which will protect open spaces in local communities, as they are important for physical and mental health and for nurturing people’s connection with nature (particularly when they also achieve biodiversity benefits). An RSPB report (‘Recovering Together’ – 2021) undertaken since our previous consultation response shows widespread support from people in England for green space retention and provision, and in particular the importance for improved provision amongst deprived communities (which often have much worse provision and access).

The National Trust strongly supports the ambitions of this policy. Existing areas of amenity greenspace should be protected from development to ensure they continue to provide valuable facilities for existing communities.

Cambourne Town Council considers the section will achieve the aim of the plan and these should be supported. The importance of the existing green space and biodiversity in Cambourne should be stressed especially as Cambourne is a part of the Western gateway multifunctional green infrastructure corridor.

Policy here contravened by putting a massive industrial scale development on important Green Belt at Honey Hill. Achieving S/NEC Policy by putting the CWWTP on Green Belt makes a mockery of this policy

Previously (late 90s) Cambridge City Council had a policy that allotment sites with less than 15% vacancies would be invulnerable to disposal for housing developments. It seems unlikely that current allotment sites will be developed, but it would be good to state this explicitly in the plan.
Further, some allotment sites have statutory protection, in that government would need to approve disposal. It would be good to clarify which of the existing council-owned allotment sites are classified as statutory, and which are temporary, and declare the latter as now statutory, so that they benefit from that protection.

Broadly supportive but again concern that this is too general a concept that requires further precision.

FORM RESPONSE

Vision and development strategy
Section / Policy Your comments
Vision and aims
How much development, and where – general comments Support the approach to contain any development to major clusters.
S/JH: New jobs and homes
S/DS: Development strategy Support to the extent that development should be very restricted in smaller rural villages with limited public transport.
S/SH: Settlement hierarchy Support Steeple Morden is a group village and should remain in this category. It is well down the sustainability hierarchy.
S/SB: Settlement boundaries Support tightly drawn development boundaries are important to reduce encroachment into the countryside and particularly for linear villages protecting their character. Also assists in delivering exception sites.

Cambridge urban area
Policy Your comments
Cambridge urban area - general comments
S/NEC: North East Cambridge
S/AMC: Areas of Major Change
S/OA: Opportunity Areas in Cambridge
S/LAC: Land allocations in Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge
Policy Your comments
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
S/CE: Cambridge East
S/NWC: North West Cambridge
S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus
S/WC: West Cambridge
S/EOC: Other existing allocations on the edge of Cambridge

New settlements
Policy Your comments
New settlements - general comments
S/CB: Cambourne
S/NS: Existing new settlements

Rural southern cluster
Policy Your comments
Rural southern cluster - general comments
S/GC: Genome Campus, Hinxton
S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster

Rest of the rural area
Policy Your comments
Rest of the rural area - general comments
S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area
S/RRP: Policy areas in the rest of the rural area

Climate change
Policy Your comments
Climate change - general comments Future development and trends will increase the use of electricity so do we have an obligation to consider where we might generate this locally? There should be clear comments on how and where solar PV farms and windfarms are going to be planned
CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings Should not be specific about not connecting a gas pipe to new housing. This might prevent the future distribution of Hydrogen. Should keep this option open
CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments Absolutely necessary.
CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management Infrastructure should be operational before housing occupation. Especially managing hard surface run off.
CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure Support for community led projects but should include access to funding.
CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
CC/CS: Supporting land based carbon sequestration

Biodiversity and green spaces
Policy Your comments
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity Biodiversity Net Gain conditions should include developer funds for monitoring and remedialaction if required.
BG/GI: Green infrastructure Support for recognition of Pollinator corridors. Strategic Green Infrastructure should include protection and enhancement of chalk aquifer spring line.
BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population Support particularly providing enhanced protection to existing mature trees.
BG/RC: River corridors Support Steeple Morden has an important tributary of the Cam flowing through the Parish – The Rhee. There should also be recognition enhancement and protection for the brooks which emanate from the aquifer spring line and help feed the river system.
BG/PO: Protecting open spaces Support
BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces Support

Wellbeing and inclusion
Policy Your comments
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
WS/CF: Community, sports, and leisure facilities Support
WS/MU: Meanwhile uses during long term redevelopments
WS/IO: Creating inclusive employment and business opportunities through new developments
WS/HS: Pollution, health and safety Support

Great places policies
Policy Your comments
Great places – general comments
GP/PP: People and place responsive design Support
GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character Support. Need to ensure protection of landscape setting of villages and penetration of countryside gaps as an important element of character particularly those villages with a predominantly linear form.
GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
GP/QD: Achieving high quality development Support
GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm Support
GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets Support Need to complete Conservation Area Assessments for villages
GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
GP/PH8: Protection of Public Houses Support but condition included that if part of Pub is agreed for another use the marketing policy remains.

Jobs policies
Policy Your comments
Jobs – general comments
J/NE: New employment development proposals
J/RE: Supporting the rural Economy Support
J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land Strongly support particularly in the light of grade I peat soil requiring remedial action and the need for increased food security.
J/PB: Protecting existing business space
J/RW: Enabling remote working Support
J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries
J/EP: Supporting a range of facilities in employment parks
J/RC: Retail and centres
J/VA: Visitor accommodation, attractions and facilities
J/FD: Faculty development and specialist / language schools

Homes policies
Policy Your comments
Homes – general comments
H/AH: Affordable housing
H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing Support but all types of sites should retain local connection and permanence criteria
H/HM: Housing mix
H/HD: Housing density
H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots Support
H/SS: Residential space standards and accessible homes
H/SH: Specialist housing and homes for older people
H/CB: Self- and custom-build homes
H/BR: Build to rent homes
H/MO: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
H/SA: Student accommodation
H/DC: Dwellings in the countryside Support but would stress the importance of ensuring that structures are sound.
H/RM: Residential moorings
H/RC: Residential caravans
H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People sites
H/CH: Community led housing Support and encouraged where there is no conflict with exception site policy.

Infrastructure policies
Policy Your comments
Infrastructure – general comments Agree there should be support for community led projects but should describe what form the support should take.

Infrastructure should be operational before occupation of new housing particularly the need to manage surface water runoff from hard surfaces to minimise the amount of sewage being released into the waterways
I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity Support but Improvements required to rural public transport and the last mile congestion into Cambridge City.
I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles Support for rural public charging points at community facilities
I/FD: Freight and delivery consolidation
I/SI: Safeguarding important infrastructure Support. Should also include disused railway lines with potential for future use.
I/AD: Aviation development Airfields are an important resource and difficult to replace. Local Plan should recognise the need for National Network of General Airfields.Government National Planning Policy Framework section 106.f, to ensure that planning decisions have regard to the importance of the national network of General Aviation airfields is clear. Environmental health concerns should be taken into account when deciding on housing location to avoid new occupants stress, disappointment and possible conflict.
I/EI: Energy infrastructure masterplanning
I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery Greater Cambridge is in a severely water stressed area and is causing environmental damage. Development should be curtailed until new water supply and sewage infrastructure is operational.
I/DI: Digital infrastructure Need for enhancement of mobile phone coverage in villages with poor reception by well sited and suitably camouflaged masts.

Supporting documents on which we are consulting
Policy Your comments
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment)
Habitats Regulations Assessment

Firstly, the Form To Assist gives a comment column for Vision and Aims.
We have numerous comments to make under this heading but I have not been able to locate this on the online system.
Secondly, the online system asks "Did you raise the matter that is the subject of your representation with the LPA earlier in the process?"
Guilden Morden Parish Council have not been involved earlier in the process. I have therefore clicked "No" but the system will not allow me to proceed further.
The online system allows only 100 words for each comment and to summarise the comments to avoid exceeding 100 words. It would have been helpful if the Form To Assist had stated that.
Vision and development strategy
Section / Policy Your comments
Vision and aims 1.Guilden MordenParish Council has concerns that the increase in population resulting from the additional homes target of 44,000 will have a negative impact on an already struggling traffic, school and healthcare infrastructure.
Specifically on traffic and congestion:
Commuting into and out of Cambridge at peak times already attracts significant congestion and delay for commuters.
This not only effects commuting by car but also bus and the Park&Ride buses as these typically use the same roads as the other commuters and the bus lane network doesn’t extend to where it’s needed.
Links between the train stations and the city centre are also currently inadequate and equally effected by commuter congestion.
The guided busway is too infrequent to be a viable alternative and typically the Park& Ride parking is at capacity leaving commuters with little alternative other than to drive into the city centre.
All of the above describes the current situation which will clearly be significantly worsened by the addition of 44,000 homes by 2041.
2. Is the methodology used in arriving at the figure of 44,000 defendable?

How much development, and where – general comments Support that the proposed developments are to be in major clusters in areas with good public transport.
S/JH: New jobs and homes
S/DS: Development strategy Support to the extent that development should be very restricted in smaller rural villages with limited public transport.
S/SH: Settlement hierarchy Support. Guilden Morden is a group village and should remain in this category. It is well down the sustainability hierarchy.
S/SB: Settlement boundaries Support. Tightly drawn development boundaries are important to reduce encroachment into the countryside.

Cambridge urban area
Policy Your comments
Cambridge urban area - general comments
S/NEC: North East Cambridge
S/AMC: Areas of Major Change
S/OA: Opportunity Areas in Cambridge
S/LAC: Land allocations in Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge
Policy Your comments
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
S/CE: Cambridge East
S/NWC: North West Cambridge
S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus
S/WC: West Cambridge
S/EOC: Other existing allocations on the edge of Cambridge

New settlements
Policy Your comments
New settlements - general comments
S/CB: Cambourne
S/NS: Existing new settlements

Rural southern cluster
Policy Your comments
Rural southern cluster - general comments
S/GC: Genome Campus, Hinxton
S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster

Rest of the rural area
Policy Your comments
Rest of the rural area - general comments
S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area
S/RRP: Policy areas in the rest of the rural area

Climate change
Policy Your comments
Climate change - general comments Future development and trends will increase the use of electricity. Where might this be generated locally by solar and/or wind?
CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings Support
CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments Absolutely necessary
CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management Infrastructure should be operational before housing occupation
CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure Support for community led projects but should include access to funding
CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
CC/CS: Supporting land based carbon sequestration

Biodiversity and green spaces
Policy Your comments
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity Biodiversity Net Gain conditions should include developer funds for monitoring and remedial action if required
BG/GI: Green infrastructure Support for recognition of pollinator corridors. Strategic Green Infrastructure should include protection and enhancement of chalk aquifer spring line.
BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population Support
BG/RC: River corridors Support
BG/PO: Protecting open spaces Support
BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces Support

Wellbeing and inclusion
Policy Your comments
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
WS/CF: Community, sports, and leisure facilities Support
WS/MU: Meanwhile uses during long term redevelopments
WS/IO: Creating inclusive employment and business opportunities through new developments
WS/HS: Pollution, health and safety

Great places policies
Policy Your comments
Great places – general comments
GP/PP: People and place responsive design Support
GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character Support. Need to ensure protection of landscape setting of villages and penetration of countryside gaps as an important element of character.
GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
GP/QD: Achieving high quality development Support
GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm Support
GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets Support
GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
GP/PH8: Protection of Public Houses Support

Jobs policies
Policy Your comments
Jobs – general comments
J/NE: New employment development proposals
J/RE: Supporting the rural Economy Support
J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land Support
J/PB: Protecting existing business space
J/RW: Enabling remote working Support
J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries
J/EP: Supporting a range of facilities in employment parks
J/RC: Retail and centres
J/VA: Visitor accommodation, attractions and facilities
J/FD: Faculty development and specialist / language schools

Homes policies
Policy Your comments
Homes – general comments
H/AH: Affordable housing
H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing Support but all types of sites should retain local connection and permanence criteria
H/HM: Housing mix
H/HD: Housing density
H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots Support
H/SS: Residential space standards and accessible homes
H/SH: Specialist housing and homes for older people
H/CB: Self- and custom-build homes
H/BR: Build to rent homes
H/MO: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
H/SA: Student accommodation
H/DC: Dwellings in the countryside Support
H/RM: Residential moorings
H/RC: Residential caravans
H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People sites
H/CH: Community led housing Support

Infrastructure policies
Policy Your comments
Infrastructure – general comments Agree there should be support for community led projects but should describe what form the support should take.
Infrastructure should be operational before occupation of new housing particularly the need to manage surface water runoff fromhard surfacesto minimise the amount of sewage being released into the waterways
I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity Support but improvements required rural public transport and congestion into Cambridge (see comments under Vision and Aims)
I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles Support
I/FD: Freight and delivery consolidation
I/SI: Safeguarding important infrastructure Support
I/AD: Aviation development Support
I/EI: Energy infrastructure master planning
I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery Greater Cambridge is in a severely water stressed area and is causing environmental damage. Development should be curtailed until new water supply and sewage infrastructure is operational.
I/DI: Digital infrastructure Need for enhancement of mobile phone coverage in villages with poor reception by well sited and suitably camouflaged masts.

Vision and aims
I support the vision and aims of the Local Plan and the general direction of the development strategy, but am concerned about the overall scale of development and the continuing high levels of growth which are driven by technical economic growth forecasts.

How much development, and where – general comments
I recognise that Greater Cambridge has a strong and nationally important economy, but I do not support the continuing pace and scale of high levels of growth that has increasing cumulative impacts on the environment, water supply, heritage and carbon emissions.
I would argue that the growth of the Cambridge and the impacts of that level of growth on South Cambridgeshire are disproportionately high (a third higher than the government targets) compared with other Local Plans, because the scale of growth is driven by technical economic forecasts studies and the desire to continue to stoke the engine of growth yet again.
The area over the last 30 years has absorbed major levels of development which has brought many benefits and disbenefits.
But the time has come with this Plan, in a new era having to seriously address the causes and impacts of climate change and net zero carbon goals to set t Cambridge on a different course.
The development strategy should with this Plan start to reduce the scale of growth to more manageable levels, perhaps towards the Low option so as to set the direction of travel for the next planning round in the era of climate change .

S/JH: New jobs and homes
The level of new homes proposed in the Plan is driven by the need to enhance economic growth, so much so that it is 37% higher than the Government targets for the area.
This proposes larger amounts of housing growth in the surrounding South Cambridgeshire District to serve Cambridge and the surrounding area.
A large amount of new development proposed in the housing pipeline is already allocated to known sites. A moderated target would lessen the uncertainty of deliverability, ease of the identified water supply issue and give time to for water companies to decide and implement sound options, and reduce climate impacts.
Even a moderate reduction in the housing target, which goes so far beyond what the Government requires, could provide more reserve housing sites, providing flexibility to maintain a five year housing supply, reduce pressure on villages and start to slow the pace of change in an area, which has seen so much cumulative change over the recent decades.

S/DS: Development strategy
I generally support the Development Strategy that supports sustainable development and proposes compact active neighbourhoods in Cambridge, development and /or expansion of new towns connected by good public and active transport and the proposals for very limited new development in the rest of the rural area.

S/SH: Settlement hierarchy
I support the proposed Settlement hierarchy policy area as a means of planning and directing new development towards the most suitable and sustainable locations.
In my comment on the rest of rural area, I am concerned about the impact of unallocated housing windfalls being used by possible speculative planning applications contrary to the development strategy to direct development to the most sustainable locations.
I would suggest that the word indictive in the proposed policy SS/SH is omitted to strengthen and add clarity to the proposed policy in the light of the revised annual windfall target.
Support the reclassification of Cottenham and Babraham villages to provide locations for development and new jobs on good public transport routes.

S/SB: Settlement boundaries
I support the work on the development of Settlement boundaries, especially to protect the open countryside from gradual encroachment around villages and on high quality agricultural land.
The work on settlement boundaries should include the involvement of Parish Councils at an appropriate stage in the development of the Policy because of their local data and knowledge of past development.

Cambridge urban area - general comments
Support in Cambridge urban area for good designed, active compact new developments, reuse of brownfield land and continued development of larger neighbourhoods where possible.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Support the development of NE Cambridge as a sustainable neighbourhood with good public transport and active transport into Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge - general comments
Support edge of Cambridge planned new neighbourhoods and new sustainable developments and settlements of sufficient size to cater for daily needs and with good access to public and active transport

New settlements - general comments
Support for new settlements of substantial size to cater for more than local needs. I particularly support the growth of Cambourne which can provide good rail access into Cambridge and to the West in the mid-term from new East West rail infrastructure.

S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
Support the release of land from the Green Belt to support nationally important R and D and life science jobs located near to public transport routes and active transport.

S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
NB, Policy has different name on map page.
In accordance with reducing carbon emissions, and supporting access to the existing rail network the villages of Shelford and Whittlesford could be locations for more sustainable development, despite Green Belt locations

S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster
Support existing site allocations to be carried forward including the expansion of Babraham research campus using Green Belt land

Rest of the rural area - general comments
I support the development strategy approach which directs new development to a limited number of sites in the most sustainable development locations supporting the sustainability of villages.
There is still the matter of the unallocated housing windfall development identified in the strategy Topic Paper of 5345 homes for 2021-2041 which is not included in the additional allocated land target of the 11596.
The anticipated dwellings per year for SCDC is between 240 and 255 dwellings a year. Notwithstanding the proposed policy SS/SH, there is a risk that developers will seek speculative permission in the open countryside greenfield sites contrary to the development strategy using the windfalls allocation and I have made a comment on this on Policy SS/SH.

Climate change - general comments
All new development will have impacts relating to increasing carbon emissions and require adaptation responses. A Local Plan can only seek to mitigate these impacts and by far the most impacts are from the existing development, their use and getting around using carbon fuelled transport.
The rate of change in and around Cambridge over the past 30 years has been significantly greater than for just local needs, mainly to develop nationally important economic development. This Plan continues this approach despite the issue of climate change and water supply and large amounts on new development still to be implemented from current Local Plans.
I would argue that the time has now come to step back from this direction of travel and begin to reduce the scale of growth around Cambridge using the Low option as a first step.
I was hoping, given the aims of the Plan and the input of the Net Zero Carbon study for a more radical Plan which addressed climate change and zero carbon targets through aiming to reduce the total amount of new development to meet local needs need and move to a position which is in line with Government targets in the next planning round.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
Support in general
Although I have concerns about how for example heat pump technology can be installed and used at reasonable cost in new development.

CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments
Support, important given the water supply issues coming forward up to 2041

CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Support especially with regards balancing insulation and overheating with increasing hot to very hot summers risk brought about through a changing climate.
Site wide approaches should include appropriate lower densities through good design which allow for beyond minimum garden space and space for Suds and open space and greening.

CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management
Support
Especially permeable surfaces and integration of water management with enhancements to biodiversity and greening.

CC/CS: Supporting land-based carbon sequestration
Support the creation of land for use as carbon sinks through the development process. Perhaps a suitable use of land in the Green Belt or on lower grade agricultural land.

Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Support the identification of 14 strategic GI initiatives and enhancing the linkages between GI and open spaces to provide corridors for wildlife.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Support delivery of a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain.
I would comment that funding for long term management of biodiversity assets is key for the long-term benefits from such a policy.
I could also emphasis the creation of winter wet areas, water space and Suds designed to benefit enhanced biodiversity should be planned in to developments at an early stage

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Support the use of a GI standard, particularly on larger developments.
In particular early identification of GI and biodiversity assets and potential gains as an early part of the design process and /or planning brief

BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population
Support increasing tree and woodland cover, ensuring right tree(s) in right places and species futureproofed for lifetime changing climate adaptation.
A particular opportunity is the rural field margins of agricultural land to help increase the linkages and biodiversity gains and in specific places the creation of woodland belts in the open countryside, green belt land and around villages.
In Cambridge urban areas, where there are existing trees there is a need to plan their replacement with adaptation species to gradually adapt to a changing climate.
Also, to provide sufficient future tree cover to mitigate the urban heat island effect, provide shade and mitigate microclimatic effects.

BG/RC: River corridors
Support the protection and enhancement of river corridors and restoration of natural features and use of GI to support the alleviation of flooding risk.
Support the delivery of the continuous Cam Valley Trail.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
Support the protection of the wide variety of open spaces and use of Local Green Space designation in appropriate locations

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Support the provision of open space and recreation provision, including appropriate play space.

WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
Support the use of health impact assessments in proposals.
I would comment that with the increase in ride on electric vehicles and increasing older communities there are opportunities to coordinate with transport professional the delivery of smooth pathways with minimal dropped kerbs which gives smoother access to local centres and bus stops linked to older persons housing and also can prevent falls.

GP/PP: People and place responsive design
Support the requirement of inclusion of a comprehensive design and access statement and recognise the importance of good design tailored to the local area and involving local communities and Parish Councils particularly in villages.

GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Support the use of landscape character assessment to enhance the setting of Cambridge and protect and enhance the setting of villages.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
National guidance places great importance on Green Belt policy and sets out how planning proposals should be considered.
I support the use of GI and other opportunities to provide access and increase tree and woodlands where appropriate in the Green Belt.
But I think where there are locations where there is good public transport especially rail access or future rail access there is a good case to consider the special circumstances judgment.
I think it is time to question if this national policy is still relevant to the situation Greater Cambridge in the period up to the middle of the century. Further Green Belt assessments may be better served by considering sustainable development and the extension of the Green Belt to prevent coalescence around villages beyond the current Green Belt boundary which was made before most of the new development (over 70%) is beyond the current outside boundary or further modification of this policy to enable growth to be planned for the 21st century rather than the conditions which related to the last century.

Jobs – general comments
I am concerned about the scale of economic growth in the area and its use to drive large amounts of housing growth well about what would be required in other planning areas.
However, I support the life science sector and its national importance and the appropriate development in science parks including their expansion using Green Belt land

J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land
Support the restriction of development on the best agricultural land as supported in the Sustainability Appraisal.

Homes – general comments
Support the objective for planning enough housing to meet our needs, including affordable housing to rent or buy.
I object to needs being directly driven by future economic assessments, the direction of travel of the plan should be as much balanced by the climate change as future economic demand.

H/HD: Housing density
Support design led approach to determine optimum capacity of sites and appropriate density to respond to local character, especially in villages.

H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots
Support for controlling the use of gardens for new development.

Vision and development strategy
Vision and aims
THE VISION
The vision is contradictory, misconceived and undemocratic, unquestioning, unachievable, and based on inadequate evidence. The draft Plan and this whole consultation are premature.

It is contradictory in that the vision of a big decrease in climate impacts is totally undermined by blindness to fundamental incompatibilities between growth and carbon reduction. Its claims of sustainability and Net Zero are not credible given that the carbon costs of construction are not included in the Plan’s definition of a Net Zero Carbon building.

It is misconceived and undemocratic in that it claims to want “the variety of homes and jobs we need” when all the proposed options involve levels of growth dictated by a combination of Government fiat (through both imposed housing targets and four growth corridors led by the Ox Cam Arc) and the ambitions of a local oligarchy (exemplified by Cambridge Ahead) which is unrepresentative of the people of Greater Cambridge. The Arc proposals are in direct conflict with the “levelling up” agenda, will not deliver “levelling up” in terms of Cambridge’s inequalities (notably affordable housing) and should not be taken as justification for the level of growth being proposed (https://smartgrowthuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The_Overheated_Arc_Part_3_September_2021.pdf).

The Plan’s “predict and provide” approach fails to even question the desirability or deliverability of this imposed growth. Nor does it begin to tackle the severe challenges arising from past and present growth, notably in terms of affordability (in the most unequal city in England), and transport capacity issues (first identified by Holford 70 years ago), both of which have been exacerbated by growth, and will be further exacerbated, not diminished, by the growth now proposed.

It is unachievable in that
a) it ignores environmental capacity limits, most immediately in relation to water issues, but also in relation to the physical character of Greater Cambridge, and the capacity challenges of accommodating the intense activity of a 21st century city within the built fabric and spaces of a historic University town and its hinterland.
b) its claims to increase nature, wildlife and green spaces rely on a quantum of development that, considered holistically, will have an opposite effect.
c) the Plan’s growth proposals will compound the damaging impacts of current growth on our unique heritage and landscapes.

Its evidence base is incomplete and inadequate. Inexcusably, it has no assessment whatever of environmental capacity (a fundamental issue for the Plan) other than in relation to water supply. The Climate change evidence is inadequate and misleading, notably because it uses a definition of Net Zero Building which omits the embodied carbon of construction. There is no review or assessment of the success or failure of current local plan or other policies. This is compounded by the woefully inadequate historic environment evidence base, which has no strategic consideration of Cambridge as a world famous historic city, and is so incomplete that it only mentions one Conservation Area Appraisal (the Historic Core) when all the city’s Conservation Areas are covered by Appraisals, and fails to use the readily available evidence contained within them.
The draft Plan and the whole consultation are premature pending
1) A thorough understanding and appreciation of the current character of Greater Cambridge and its environmental capacity
2) The forthcoming Water Resources East consultation on the Regional Water Plan, on which these proposals depend
3) Transport solutions which can be accommodated in the space available, including those currently and imminently out for consultation on transport capacity and links within and outside the city.

THE AIMS
The Plan’s aims do not include what is arguably the most vital: how to maintain, enhance, and provide more equitable access to what makes Cambridge special, in the face of the combined challenges of growth and Climate Change. This should be a key priority of the Historic Environment Strategy which is required by the NPPF, but absent from the First Proposals.

As someone from the Tech industry said in a meeting last year with Stephen Kelly, Director of Planning: “Malta has concrete high rises, no one goes there. The Tech sector comes here because it’s a nice place to be. If Cambridge takes a predict and provide approach, it will accelerate into catastrophe.”

How much development, and where – general comments
No more development allocations until issues arising from existing approved growth have been identified and tackled. This means waiting for the Regional Water Plan and coherent publicly-endorsed proposals for tackling existing congestion and capacity issues, challenging the assumptions underlying the Ox Cam Arc, and carrying out a holistic assessment of environmental capacity and the limits to growth. All in line with the principles of Doughnut Economics which the City Council says that it has adopted.

The evidence base is seriously inadequate in relation to environmental capacity. There is no evaluation of the success or failure of existing policies in maintaining the special character of Cambridge, an aim which the new Plan seeks to maintain. Such consideration needs to include not only impacts of the form, scale and location of new development, but also of the transport and other infrastructure required by it. Current growth is putting massive, and unresolved pressures on the capacity of existing transport links, and the physical capacity of Cambridge’s roads system and public realm.

The GCP’s Making Connections proposals, currently under consultation, attempt to resolve some of the challenges, but have no detailed assessment of the capacity of Cambridge’s streets to take the extra volumes of bus and cycle traffic being proposed. Given that Cambridge’s congestion problems are historic, and compounded by growth, this consultation on Local Plan proposals for additional growth is premature in the absence of credible and detailed proposals to tackle current capacity issues.
S/DS: Development strategy
How can the proposals aim for net zero with this sheer volume of proposed development (while whole-life costing of large new proposals is welcome, what about the carbon cost of developments in the pipeline? - see above and comments on CC/NZ below).
No mention of impacts of transport links required for these proposals. Need to ensure that these are brought forward in concurrently with the Local Plan proposals.
Cambridge urban area
Cambridge urban area - general comments

Massive environmental capacity issues, with inadequate space in City streets and public realm to cater for existing traffic, let alone approved growth already in the pipeline – even before considering these First Proposals. The capacity issues have to be tackled, with additional growth allowed only if they can be resolved.

No mention of Covid and opportunities for city centre residential / other uses resulting from potential radical changes in retail.
No new cultural or provision for other “city-scale” needs, so putting the city centre under even greater pressure.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Vividly illustrates the issues. Gross over development.
Edge of Cambridge
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
The Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

This highlights a vital flaw of the Plan, its failure to take a holistic view of the combination of different elements (including historic and natural environment) which make up the character of Greater Cambridge. The Government may have tried to artificially separate the natural and built environment with its Environment Act, but that doesn’t mean this approach should be followed in Cambridge!

Climate change
Climate change - general comments

The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Already out of date in terms of Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice.
Support regular reviews to keep pace with developing technology, standards, Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice. There are also serious quality control challenges in relation to whether aspirational aims are actually delivered. How will this be done? Outline planning permissions must be subject to the aspirations articulated in draft local plan. How will this be done?
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” (sic) and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)
Agree that development should be located so that low carbon transport links can be accessed. However, such locations should not be chosen based on proposed busways – the delivery of these is uncertain and their construction generates carbon emissions through the embodied carbon in the building materials, tree felling reducing carbon capture, maintenance and serving works, and lighting, contrary to the Council’s net zero carbon agenda.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

Incredibly, no mention of retrofit in the Climate Change topic paper! The Council’s apparent view that retrofit is not within the scope of the Plan is mistaken. The only place in which retrofit is mentioned, and far too narrowly, is in policy GP/CC in the Great Places paper. This is one of several instances where a holistic approach should require read-across between Policies in different sections (e.g. also between historic environment and natural environment).

Retrofit will be within the direct scope of the Plan (guiding planning decisions) whenever it involves works which could potentially require planning permission or listed building consent.
[Case in point is the new Institute for Sustainability Leadership building (conversion of former telephone exchange) on Regent St. Major impact on appearance of building which makes (or made) a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, not a heritage asset but requiring planning permission. The submitted justification included every possible assessment criterion apart from townscape / heritage impact (shockingly not even considered by the applicants!). What has been approved and is now being built involved losing the window detailing which was a key part of the building’s character. Since that scheme was approved, PAS 2038 (non-domestic retrofit guidance) has come into force: it would have required a more comprehensive approach by the applicants, and might have led to a different decision. ]

Retrofit is also within the scope of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, which needs to be updated to include embodied carbon, over the whole life cycle of construction (including retrofit and refurbishment), as set out in British Standard BS EN 15978:2011:
SEE ATTACHED
(slide by Alice Moncaster)

This Climate Change section should include specific policies covering retrofit, which will feature ever more strongly as Govt targets for Band C etc bite. These targets present serious challenges now, and will get ever more serious during the Plan period, with high risks of carbon (and money) being wasted on inappropriate works. Yet Net Zero Carbon for existing buildings is mentioned only cursorily, on a single page (35) of the Local Plan’s Net Zero Carbon Evidence Base.

There is no mention whatsoever of the need for a different approach to buildings of traditional solid wall construction. These form at least a quarter of the existing stock; this proportion should have been considered and assessed as part of the Evidence Base. It could even be as high as 35%, the proportion quoted in the BRE study “Solid wall heat losses and the potential for energy saving” published by DECC in 2015.

The specific challenges of traditional buildings , and the risks of unforeseen consequences (and of consequent waste, rather than saving, of carbon and money) are highlighted in PAS2035, the Government’s guidance on domestic retrofit, which is referenced in Policy GP/CC. However the reference to PAS 2035 in the Policy is futile in its draft form because the PAS (although Government guidance) is not freely available, but published by the British Standards Institute, costing £190, and so is inaccessible to home owners and others who need the guidance.

The Climate Change section of the Plan should quote key principles and guidance* from PAS 2035 and its non-domestic counterpart PAS 2038 (and reference other freely available advice including from the STBA and IHBC as well as the Government’s own guidance to Private Sector Landlords) in sufficient detail to ensure that people dealing with ALL traditional buildings (not only heritage assets) have access to the appropriate advice and skills to ensure that their buildings are put in good repair, and then suitable retrofit measures are applied as appropriate. See https://stbauk.org/whole-house-approach/. This is essential to achieve the aims of the PASs and to minimise unintended consequences.
*including (e.g.) section 0.1.1 of PAS 2035:
SEE ATTACHED

Biodiversity and green spaces
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Serious environmental capacity issues (see above), particularly in relation to intensification of pressures on green spaces..

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Flawed in that green infrastructure and historic environment re considered separately (see comments on Edge of Cambridge, River corridors, and Protecting open spaces). A holistic approach is essential – see NPPF definition of the historic environment..

BG/RC: River corridors
The River Cam Corridor initiative does not mention the historic environment, historic environment designations, or conservation area appraisals. High risks of more intensive use. no mention of environmental capacity issues or recognition that there may be capacity limits to growth or access by either/both local people and visitors (impacts of punt operators on Cam, etc). No mention of historic environment designations. No consideration of areas under particular threat. No consideration of historic / characteristic uses and land management. The whole river corridor from Byron’s Pool to Baits Bite, and its historic uses are vital parts of the historic and cultural as well as landscape character of Cambridge and should be safeguarded. Grantchester Meadows, one of the key river corridor historic and cultural spaces, is the only vital section of the corridor currently without Conservation Area designation; it is currently threatened by visitor pressures and by possible removal of the grazing cattle which play a vital part in traditional water meadow management.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
No mention that many open spaces are historic, and form part of the historic environment (see NPPF definition of the historic environment) need to consider their significance as a whole, not just in terms of green infrastructure. Historic environment and local identity are vital elements of the wellbeing identified here

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Open space is not just green space - what about the market square, Quayside etc etc? Need to manage existing pressures, and avoid harmful intensification of use, on all open spaces, and ensure that new development does not increase these pressures. The river corridor is particularly vulnerable.


Wellbeing and inclusion
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
There are no documents in the Document Library to support this theme. Why not?

The Topic Paper highlights the importance of place and space, but its text is focused on new developments, and does not mention the contribution made to wellbeing by the beauty and special character of existing places, including the city of Cambridge, the towns and villages, and valued countryside. The historic environment is a vital part of wellbeing.

Nor is Covid mentioned, even though the pandemic has highlighted the vital importance of access to local green space, and to local fresh food. Small local producers have continued to provide when the supermarkets supply chains fail. Cambridge market, and the local producers who sell from it, continues to provide a lifeline of health and wellbeing for many people, as well as providing vital opportunities for business start-ups including makers as well as food sellers.

There is no assessment of existing cultural activities, of current demands for space, or of demands for new space arising from either existing approved growth or that now proposed. Nor is there any assessment of related opportunities in terms of under-used retail space post-Covid. This is a totally inadequate baseline for a credible Plan.

The forthcoming Cultural Infrastructure Strategy for Greater Cambridge will need to recognise Cambridge’s international cultural significance in terms of both its historic environment (which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage sites), and its past and present cultural activities. The Local Plan should include policies to protect this significance, and specifically to support cultural activities, and to provide for, and safeguard, public and private spaces for arts and other activities.

Great places policies
Great places – general comments

The Great Places paper refers to Heritage Assets, but completely fails to recognise that the city of Cambridge is a heritage asset of worldwide significance which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage status. This significance derives from the combination of its built and natural heritage. The draft Plan fails to recognise the vital role which this special character plays in making Cambridge a great place to live in, work, study, and visit.

The draft Plan also fails to recognise the historic relationships between Cambridge as a market town, its market, and its productive hinterland.

The draft Plan’s approach involves a false separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

Cambridge’s special character has been, and continues to be, under severe threats from the quantum of already approved growth (built developments and pressures on both streets and green spaces). There are severe environmental capacity issues in trying to accommodate the demands of a 21st century city within what remains the built fabric and spaces of a medieval market town. These fundamental conflicts between growth on the one hand and environmental capacity and special character on the other should have been recognised as a key challenge for the draft Local Plan. so why wasn’t the Historic Environment Baseline Study prioritised, and published as part of the Nov 2020 tranche?

But the draft Plan documents include no assessment of current pressures, let alone the impacts of the draft First Proposals.

Instead, para 3.2.4 of the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline makes a totally unevidenced statement that:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity".

Overall, the Evidence base for Great Places is inadequate, and the proposals are premature pending a thorough review of the success or failure of existing policies.


GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Over-intensification of use is a major threat to landscape character.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
I strongly support protection of the Green Belt, but the Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

The Council appears to have forgotten that the Green Belt was set up to protect the setting of the historic University city.

GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm
Serious issues of street capacity.

GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets
A vital issue given totally inadequate consideration and priority. The historic environment (not just heritage assets) is a vital part of Cambridge, not just in terms of Great Places, but also for Wellbeing, and for the city’s prosperity.

The historic environment, and its capacity (or not) to withstand existing growth (let alone new growth proposed) should have been considered at the start of the Great Places chapter. Understand what you have, then consider its capacity for change
Fails to consider anything other than designated heritage assets. No consideration of heritage significance of Cambridge as a whole, or of the heritage significance of undesignated buildings, spaces, and intangible heritage –notably Cambridge’s market, which pre-dates the University, and Grantchester meadows.
The Heritage Impact Assessment is not fit for purpose, and clearly written by consultants who have limited knowledge of Cambridge, and of issues, policies, and initiatives relating to its historic environment. There is no mention of any Conservation Area appraisal apart from the Historic Core, and no cumulative assessment of significance and issues identified in these Appraisals.
.
The “Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline” is woefully inadequate in both its scope and its approach:
a) In its scope, because it confines itself to stages 1 (identify the historic assets” and 2 (“define and analyse the settings”) of Historic England’s ”Settings of Heritage Assets: Good Practice Guide”, without considering the dynamic of the city as a whole, what has been happening in its recent years, or the potential impacts of currently approved growth. It is almost as if the Council asked for an updated version of the 1971 publication “Cambridge Townscape”, whilst completely disregarding the award-winning conservation plan approach of the 2006 Historic Core Appraisal which sought to understand not just the physical character of Cambridge but its dynamic, and threats and opportunities, as part of shaping policies.

b) while the document references the Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal, it does not even mention other Conservation Area Appraisals (ignoring the complete Appraisal coverage of the City's Conservation Areas) or issues and opportunities identified therein. Nor does it mention the Suburbs and Approaches Studies. It is all too clear that the consultants have taken only a superficial look at the baseline information.

c) I would have expected consultants preparing this “high level” document to consider the historic environment, and the extent of designations, strategically (a great opportunity for this combined Plan) - but the document does not even consider the extent to which Cambridge’s historic and cultural landscape (including the river corridor from Byron’s pool to Baits Bite Lock) is or is not protected.

d) The study completely fails to assess the significance of Cambridge as a whole. Dennis Rodwell’s “Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities” puts Cambridge on a similar level of international significance to Venice.

e) For the options involving development in and adjacent to Cambridge, it seems to assume that most problems can be resolved by Design, completely ignoring environmental capacity issues. At a most immediate level, what if any detailed assessment has been made of the wider visual impacts of tall buildings on the North-East Cambridge site?

There are fundamental environmental capacity issues in terms of pressures on the character and spaces of the historic core and surrounding landscape, due to not only the additional volumes of development, people and traffic being generated by the proposed additional growth, but all of these arising from existing approved growth plus the transport links required to enable it.

There is no assessment whatever of the cumulative impacts on landscape, townscape and environmental capacity of all the GCP and other proposals including busways, City Access, Greenways, Active Travel schemes etc.

A third-party, holistic overview is essential to identify and try to resolve some of these key strategic issues and balances, and consider to what extent further growth is viable. In relation to heritage, growth is seriously threatening what makes Cambridge Special. I suggest that Historic England’s Historic Places Panel are invited to visit Cambridge and provide strategic recommendations which can inform the Local Plan.

The flaws in the current approach are exemplified by a claim in the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity"
This statement can only be described as unevidenced, shockingly ignorant and ludicrously complacent.
Moving from strategic issues to safeguarding individual heritage assets and their settings, there are serious questions in relation to the effectiveness of existing policies which are proposed to be carried forward.

A case in point is the former Mill Road Library a grade II listed building of high public significance, which was recognised to be “at risk” but ignored by both the City and County Councils during the development and approval of the City’s Depot site redevelopment. This was a massive opportunity which would not have been missed had the City complied with its own Local Plan policy regarding heritage assets. While the County has belatedly refurbished the former Library, it has not been integrated as a public building within the new development. It appears that the County may now be offering this public building, built for the public, for private sale!

GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
This policy is basically very good -but should relate to all buildings of traditional construction, and needs some updating. Needs direct read-across to CC/NZ. See my comments on CC/NZ.
Supporting documents on which we are consulting
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment)

The Sustainability Appraisal fails to tackle the key environmental capacity issues arising from existing growth, let alone that now proposed.

The whole definition of “Sustainable Development” is too narrow given that since 2010 the UN has included Culture as the 4th pillar of Sustainable Development - and Cambridge's historic environment is a cultural asset of worldwide significance.

Within the current UK sustainability assessment process (dating from 2004 and excluding culture), there is a separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

On biodiversity and open space, please give great prominence to green networks and allow for damage to designated sites from adjacent development
- please do not make the defra BNG calculations overriding - they are not very sensitive to some important biodiversity considerations
- on open space please allow for the benefits of only visual accessibility

Please see attached summary.

We understand that this policy is about protecting existing open spaces but the lack of direction and information associated with it makes it impossible to comment on. Policy to protect existing open spaces is extremely important, especially given that in recent years so many open spaces, including many of those specifically listed and supposedly protected under the two current Local Plans for the City and South Cambridge have been threatened or damaged [1]. We request a clearly worded policy so that we can assess and comment on it.
[1] See for example https://cambridge.greenparty.org.uk/news/local-greens-object-to-development-stmatthews-
piece.html