GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character

Great places policies
71. CPRE supports the principles expressed in this section and its accompanying policies. Indeed, we are
pleased to see expressed the established local purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, which are to:
• preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic
centre
• maintain and enhance the quality of its setting
• prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the
city.
72. However, CPRE does not believe that the draft Local Plan is adhering to these principles, particularly in the
case of proposals to remove several sites from the Green Belt.
73. We are also concerned that some of the developments that have already occurred around Cambridge are
visually intrusive and, in some cases, aesthetically unappealing. We would not want to see these mistakes
repeated.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the First Proposals Public Consultation for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully considered at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Cambridge is a beautiful, compact and historic city. It is also an historic seat of learning with a very high concentration of highly graded heritage assets. Much of the city is covered by Conservation Area status. The river corridor, green fingers and open spaces, with cows grazing in meadows even at the heart of the city, shape the character of the townscape and landscape.

Although a relatively flat landscape, the elevated positions to the west and south of the Cambridge afford important views across the city skyline, which is one of extensive tree cover and emerging spires. The flatter Fens landscape to the north and east provides very long-distance views of the City and the big east Anglian skies.

The surrounding rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire comprises over 100 villages, each with their own unique character and heritage. New settlements are an important feature of the district, with their own special identity and are growing rapidly.

We recognise the area faces intense pressure for growth, driven by both the economic success and the attractiveness of the area, in large part a consequence of

its rich architectural and cultural heritage. This growth must be carefully managed to ensure that the very things that contribute to its success are not harmed in the process.

It is for this reason that Historic England is keen to ensure that the emerging plan gives full consideration to the historic environment, both in the choice of site allocations and policy criteria for sites, as well as through a robust and clear suite of historic environment and other policies that seek to both protect but also enhance the historic environment.

We have reviewed the Draft Plan and consultation material with a view to providing advice on heritage matters.

As a general comment, Historic England welcomes emerging plan and work undertaken to date. We have however identified below some of the key issues to be addressed in progressing the next iteration of the Plan: This should be read in conjunction with Appendix A which provides more detailed comments on these and other more minor issues.

a) Site Assessment and the need for Heritage Impact Assessments

We are pleased to note that a degree of site assessment has already been undertaken in relation to the historic environment. These are set out in the HELAA Report, especially Appendix 4.

To date, the assessment of sites is fairly high level and brief but provides a useful starting point, in particular helping to identify immediate showstoppers. We note that many of the sites are shown as amber.

As we have discussed previously, the need for further assessment of heritage in terms of significance, impact on that significance, potential mitigation and enhancements etc will be needed for the site allocations. There is currently an insufficient evidence base in this regard. We therefore welcome your commitment to undertake Heritage Impact Assessments for site allocations. These should be prepared prior to the next draft of the Local Plan.

This further assessment, known as Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should follow the 5 step methodology set out in out in our advice note, HEAN 3 on Site Allocations in Local Plans https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/.

HIAs should be proportionate (both to the scale of the site and the assets affected). All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment

impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or inter-visibility with, a potential site.

Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.

Impacts on significance are not just based on distance or visual impacts, and assessment requires a careful judgment based on site visits and the available evidence base. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:

• Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
• Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
• Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
• Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
• Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
• Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

The HIAs should assess the suitability of each area for development and the impact on the historic environment. Should the HIA conclude that development in the area could be acceptable and the site be allocated, the findings of the HIA should inform the Local Plan policy including development criteria and a strategy diagram which expresses the development criteria in diagrammatic form.

Which sites require HIA?

Ideally all sites should have an HIA, albeit proportionate to the site and heritage sensitivities.

For existing allocations being carried forward into this Local Plan, the HIA is less about the principle of development (that has already been established through previous plan allocation) and more about exploring capacity, height, density and any heritage mitigation and enhancement opportunities so that these can then be

included in the updated policy wording.

For new allocations, the HIA will be a more holistic view and consider both the principle of development as well as the other matters identified above.

b) Policy Wording for sites

If, having completed the heritage impact assessments, it is concluded that a site is suitable for allocation, we would remind you to include appropriate policy criteria for the historic environment in the policy. Please refer to the advice we give on policy wording in the attached table.

It can be helpful to refer to an HIA in the policy wording. Concept diagrams can also be useful to include in the plan to illustrate key site considerations/ recommendations.

c) Edge of Cambridge sites

The Plan proposes carrying forward a number of partially built out allocations on the edge of the City as well as some minor extensions to these. The Plan also proposes revisiting the dwelling capacity/density for some of these sites e.g. Eddington.

Proposals for North East Cambridge are very high density and also quite tall.

The Plan also includes a very large new allocation at East Cambridge (previously released from the Green Belt and allocated in the 2006 Plan, although not in the 2018 Plan). The number of dwellings now being proposed represents a significant increase in density from the 2006 Plan.

We have some concerns regarding these densities and heights on edge of Cambridge sites. Development at very high densities/heights and the potential impact on the overall setting of this historic city. HIAs should give careful consideration to the issue of development and site capacity and height – we will be looking for evidence in this regard.

d) Historic Environment Policy

We welcome your intention to include a policy for the Historic Environment. This should cover both designated and non-designated heritage assets. Policy wording should be in line with the NPPF but we are also looking for a local flavour.

Policies should be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the area and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation.

You should also include a policy for Heritage at Risk and a policy for historic shopfronts. For further detail see Appendix A.

e) Design Policy

We welcome the proposals for a design policy on the plan. We note that this policy is also intended to address tall buildings. We are concerned that the policy might become overly long and detailed, given it is covering such a wide and important range of issues and wonder whether separating out tall buildings into a separate policy might be helpful?

f) Tall Buildings Study and Policy

Related to the above, given the growth pressures that we would anticipate Cambridge is likely to experience over the coming years, we are pleased to see that the matter of Tall buildings and the skyline will be addressed in policy.

We had understood that you were commissioning a study in relation to tall buildings and the skyline policy. Is this still proposed to inform the policy in the next draft of the Local Plan?

See our advice note HEAN 4 and the consultation draft of HEAN 4. Any policy should indicate what considerations are needed for taller buildings, where buildings may or may not be appropriate etc. and in particular consider in the impact on the historic environment.

We broadly welcome policy 60 and Appendix F of the 2018 Cambridge City Local Plan. However, we consider that this could be further supplemented to indicate which areas may or may not be suited to taller buildings. Our advice note in relation to tall buildings provides further guidance in this respect

We have been having discussions with the team preparing The North East Area Action Plan in relation to tall buildings studies and have provided a detailed advice letter in that regard. Please refer to our advice letters in relation to NEA Action Plan and tall buildings for further information on our position.

g) Other Supporting Evidence

We welcome the preparation of the HELAA although consider that further, more detailed evidence is needed in relation to heritage impact and so welcome your intention to prepare HIAs for site allocations.

We broadly welcome the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment including the baseline study of the setting of Cambridge. However, we have expressed some concerns regarding some aspects of this baseline, in particular the weighting given to some of the key characteristics and aspects of setting of Cambridge including views. Further detail is given in Appendix A.

We welcome the evidence in relation to landscape character assessment. We do however continue to suggest that it would also be helpful to commission Historic Landscape Characterisation work for inform this Plan and future growth in the area.

We welcome the production of the Sustainability Appraisal. We would comment however that since many of the site allocations are grouping together under particular policies, the different impacts for individual sites are not always drawn out in the assessment tables – this sometimes has the effect of neutralising the scoring.

Historic England – Ox Cam research work

Historic England has commissioned consultants to undertake some work looking at development in the OxCam Arc. ‘Measuring Impact: Managing Change’ looks at the question, ‘How should the form of growth in the Oxford-Cambridge arc positively respond to the Historic Environment’. This research is due to report in the next few months and we hope to be able to share this with you at that time as it may provide useful evidence to inform your Local Plan work.

Other comments

In preparation of the forthcoming Greater Cambridge Local Plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, archaeologists and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues. Where there are various options proposed for a settlement, identification of heritage issues for a particular

allocation does not automatically correspond to the support for inclusion of the alternative sites, given we have not been able to assess all of the sites.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

We trust that these comments are helpful to you in developing the Local Plan. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We suggest it might be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss our comments and, in particular, heritage impact assessments and policy wording for site allocations.
Please feel free to suggest some dates.

This is critically important.

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above in your letter dated 1 November 2021.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England’s key comments
We are pleased that many of our comments at the Issues and Options stage, in our letter dated 24 February 2020 (ref. 304246), are reflected in the First Proposals Plan, helping to strengthen the Plan’s approach to the ‘big themes’ including climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion. Natural England supports the general thrust of the Plan in directing development to where it will have least environmental impact and provide opportunities for enhancements.

Natural England’s previous advice highlighted the need for the Plan to address uncertainties relating to water resources and infrastructure needed to support new growth, in light of evidence that current levels of abstraction are already damaging the natural environment. We also signalled the need for the establishment of a strategic green infrastructure network that is resilient to the scale of proposed Plan development, capable of meeting people’s needs and addressing adverse impacts to the natural environment. We therefore welcome that the First Proposals Plan recognises the challenges in identifying long-term and interim solutions to the current water resource crisis to enable sustainable development without further detriment to the natural environment. We support the Plan’s progress, through the Green Infrastructure Recommendations (LUC, September 2021), in presenting opportunities for the Plan to deliver /contribute towards delivery of strategic green infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the above, Natural England believes significant additional work is required through the next stages of Plan preparation to progress these ‘solutions’ and demonstrate that development can be delivered sustainably. We have major concerns with the scale of proposed Plan development, and the 2041 timeframe for delivery, given the damage already being inflicted on the natural environment and the lengthy lead-in time for identification and delivery of measures to address the water resource issue and to implement strategic green infrastructure. Some of this Plan development is already progressing, through the adopted strategy, prior to solutions being identified and implemented; the natural environment is already being impacted. The Plan should consider how these impacts and spiralling environmental deterioration can be retrospectively

mitigated.

The section on ‘Ensuring a Deliverable Plan – Water Supply’ recognises the challenge relating to water resources; however, the Councils need to act urgently, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to identify strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions to ensure any level of proposed development is delivered sustainably. There are currently no measures in place to mitigate the adverse effects of current development on the natural environment i.e., more water is being abstracted from the aquifer to serve this development, depleting groundwater resources and causing further declines in the condition of designated sites and supporting habitat.

Potential solutions to address Greater Cambridge’s green infrastructure deficit, and the recreational pressure effects of development, lie within the Green Infrastructure Initiatives identified in LUC’s Opportunity Mapping Recommendations Report. Natural England fully supports the Initiatives identified; however, these aspirational areas must be progressed into real projects that are happening on the ground by the time the Plan is adopted. Robust Plan policy requirements should secure funding for the delivery and long-term management of these projects from all major development.

We have provided additional comments on the Plan’s key themes and policies below; however, reference should be made to the detailed advice provided in our response to the Issues and Options consultation.

Vision and aims
We support the Plan vision and aims for decreases in our climate impacts and increase in quality of life for communities, minimising carbon emissions and reliance on the private car, increases in nature, wildlife, greenspaces and safeguarding landscapes focusing on what is unique to Greater Cambridge embracing bold new approaches.

Natural England strongly recommends that the vision should advocate a more holistic approach to securing multi-functional benefits through the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. In accordance with paragraphs 17 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the Plan should encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that land can deliver a wide range of ecosystem services required for sustainable development including climate change mitigation, flood management, improved water resources and water quality, biodiversity net gain, accessible high quality green infrastructure and associated health and wellbeing benefits, enhanced landscapes and soil resources.

The Plan should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services, considering a natural capital evidence approach and making strong links to the Nature Recovery Network and the Cambridge Nature Network. National Habitats Network mapping is available to view at www.magic.defra.gov.uk.

Development Strategy
The Plan will deliver around 44,400 new homes and provide for approximately 58,500 new jobs. We welcome that the new development strategy aims to meet our increased need for new homes in a way that minimises environmental impacts and improves the wellbeing of our communities.
The strategy proposes 19 additional sites for development, along with sites already allocated in the adopted 2018 Local Plans, along with associated infrastructure including green spaces.

We support proposals to direct development to where it has the least climate impact, where active and public transport is the natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development, and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live. The vision includes creating new city neighbourhoods which have the critical mass of homes, jobs and services to create thriving communities, making best use of brownfield and safeguarded land and making the most of public transport links.

Natural England welcomes the use of evidence including the Employment Land and Economic Development Evidence Study and the Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships

Report to understand the relationship between future jobs and housing growth. We note that these studies found that planning for the standard method housing figure set by government would not support the number of jobs expected to arise between 2020 and 2041. Planning for this housing figure would risk increasing the amount of longer distance commuting into Greater Cambridge, with the resulting impacts on climate change and congestion. On this basis planning for a higher jobs figure and planning for government’s standard method local housing need figure have been rejected as reasonable alternatives.

We note that high-level consideration has been given to the potential impacts of COVID-19 on the economy of Greater Cambridge, to inform this First Proposals consultation. We support the proposal to gather evidence to consider the potential longer-term quantitative impacts of COVID- 19 prior to the Draft Plan stage to understand any implications for the objectively assessed need for jobs and homes for the plan.

Natural England has no objection in principle to the proposed Plan development strategy; however, this is subject to: 1) the identification of strategic water supply solutions and / or interim measures; and 2) development of deliverable strategic GI initiatives and developer requirements and funding mechanisms being secured through the Plan.

Policy S/DS: Development strategy
Figure 6: Map shows proposed sites to be included in the Plan including existing planning permissions alongside a limited number of new sites in the most sustainable locations. We welcome that the sustainability merits, opportunities and constraints for each of the nine potential strategy choices have been considered through the Sustainability Appraisal. Alongside considering the best locations for new homes and jobs, consideration has also been given to the best locations to restore the area’s habitat networks and provide more green spaces for people providing health and wellbeing benefits. Natural England fully supports the identification of 14 Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiatives, through the Green Infrastructure evidence, to help achieve this. We welcome the approach to preparing the preferred development strategy / draft allocations and green infrastructure initiatives in parallel.

We support the general policy direction to focus development where it will have the least climate impact, where it can be aligned with active and public transport, opportunities for delivery of green infrastructure and where jobs, services and facilities can be located nearby whilst ensuring all necessary utilities can be provided in a sustainable way. We support the approach to using less land for development to reduce carbon emissions and allow more space for nature and wildlife.
The strategy focuses on opportunities to use brownfield land and opportunities created by proposed major new infrastructure.

We note that delivery of the adopted strategy is progressing well with development permitted/underway /completed at the edge of Cambridge sites and new settlement sites including Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town. Natural England is aware that these schemes are being delivered in the absence of adequate sustainable water supply infrastructure to serve the development without adverse impact to the natural environment including statutorily designated sites. Many of these schemes are also unlikely to deliver sufficient level of accessible high quality green infrastructure to meet the needs of new residents without adverse recreational pressure impacts to the existing ecological network including statutorily designated sites. These issues need to be addressed urgently through further stages of Plan preparation as discussed in our advice above and below.

Ensuring a deliverable plan – water supply
We welcome the Councils’ recognition that water supply is a significant issue for the deliverability of the Local Plan and we fully support preparation of the Integrated Water Management Study: Outline Water Cycle (WCS) by Stantec (August 2021) to address this. The WCS has identified the need for new strategic water supply infrastructure, such as a new fens reservoir, to provide for longer term needs, and to protect the integrity of the chalk aquifer south of Cambridge, in addition to a range of interim demand management measures. The draft Sustainability Appraisal also identifies significant environmental impacts if the issue is not resolved. This is a major concern for

Natural England in light of proposed growth levels and the damaging effects that groundwater abstraction is already having on the natural environment including water-dependent designated sites and important chalk stream habitats. Natural England has provided its detailed advice on this matter, and highlighted the statutorily designated sites potentially affected, in our response to the consultation on the WCS. These ‘Designated Sites of Concern’ are listed in Appendix B of the August 2021 report.

We are aware that Water Resources East is currently preparing its Water Management Plan for the region and that this will help to identify long-term measures to address the issue. However, these strategic measures, including a new fens reservoir, are unlikely to be available until the 2030’s hence interim measures are required to enable some level of sustainable growth. We welcome the suggestion of including Plan policies to phase delivery of development that can be supported by a sustainable water supply until new strategic infrastructure is in place; however, it will need to be clearly demonstrated that interim solutions are sustainable and will not cause further environmental decline. The risk is that it may not be possible to demonstrate delivery of the full objectively assessed needs within the plan period.

Natural England appreciates that pressure on water supplies is a regional issue. We share the Councils’ aspirations that the water industry, supported by government, will set out its intentions for positively addressing this key infrastructure issue at an early point in the ongoing plan making process, to provide confidence that adequate water supply will be available to support delivery of the preferred options allocations, before the next stage of a full draft Local Plan. In our view the Councils need to act urgently, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to identify strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions, including demand management measures, to ensure any level of proposed development is delivered sustainably.

We have serious concerns that Plan development is already being progressed, through the adopted strategy, without sustainable water supply measures in place. More water will be abstracted from the aquifer to serve this development, depleting groundwater resources and causing further declines in the condition of designated sites and supporting habitat. The Plan will need to consider the impacts of this development and identify measures to address adverse environmental impact.

Natural England fully supports the concerns raised by the Environment Agency, as lead authority on this matter, including the high degree of uncertainty as to whether sufficient sustainable water supplies can be provided for the proposed growth over the plan period without further detriment to the natural environment. Further development of the WCS, informed by evidence from regional and water company water resource plans, will need to demonstrate that appropriate deliverable mitigation measures can support sustainable growth until new strategic water supply infrastructure becomes operational. We agree with the Environment Agency that it in the face of current challenges it may be appropriate to consider an extended timeframe for delivery of Plan development to limit further environmental degradation until new strategic measures become available. This would allow further time for the identification of truly sustainable options that build in resilience to climate change and robust mitigation and monitoring measures to address impacts to the natural environment and restore habitat condition.

Duty to Cooperate
Natural England welcomes consideration of how the Plan fits with other plans and strategies including cross boundary projects such as the Ox Cam Arc. We support recognition of the Plan to be prepared within a wider regional context noting the Councils’ legal duty to cooperate with key stakeholders and surrounding areas of cross boundary issues. We agree that the development of a clear and positive vision for the future of the Greater Cambridge area can help to shape the proposals for the Ox Cam Arc, noting that the outcome of the Oxford-Cambridge framework is currently awaited.

We particularly support the Councils’ recognition that the water supply challenge discussed above is a serious issue to be resolved.

Natural England will be pleased to engage with the Councils in the preparation and development of a draft Statement of Common Ground.

Transport Strategy
Natural England welcomes that the proposed strategy is heavily informed by the location of existing and committed public transport schemes. We support the use of transport modelling to understand whether additional infrastructure and policies are required to address the transport impacts of the preferred development strategy.

Transport policies should include requirements for projects to undertake robust ecological impact assessment and application of the ecological mitigation hierarchy.

Site allocation policies
Proposed site allocation policies are described through sections 2.2 – 2.5. Natural England has no objection in principle to the existing and new allocations, areas of major change or opportunity areas being taken forward for development. However, this is subject to:
• identification of strategic water supply infrastructure and/or feasible interim solutions to demonstrate that development can be delivered sustainably and without adverse impact to the natural environment;
• establishment of a framework and robust plan policies to deliver the 14 Strategic Green Infrastructure initiatives ahead of development, to meet development needs and to address the effects of recreational pressure on sensitive sites and habitats.

The site allocation policies will need to include robust requirements to secure delivery of biodiversity net gain and on-site accessible green infrastructure to meet people’s need and to contribute towards the Plan’s 20% BNG targets and delivery of the Nature Recovery Network / Cambridge Nature Network. Our advice is that major allocation policies should set a framework for development to maximum opportunities for environmental gains.

Climate Change
We welcome the proposed policies relating to net zero carbon and water efficiency, designing for climate change, flooding and integrated water management, renewable energy projects, reducing waste and supporting land-based carbon sequestration. We particularly support the proposed requirement for residential developments to be designed to achieve a standard of 80 litres/person/ day; however, we support the Environment Agency’s concerns as to whether the Plan is likely to achieve the reductions in demand required to support sustainable growth. As indicated above the WCS will need to demonstrate how water, to meet growth needs, will be supplied sustainably without adverse impact to the natural environment.

Proposed requirements for developments to provide integrated water management, including sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) where possible and for SuDS and green /brown roofs to provide multiple benefits (including biodiversity and amenity) are welcomed.

We support requirements for renewable energy projects to consider impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape and water quality.

Natural England welcomes a proposed policy to support the creation of land and habitats that play a role as carbon sinks and protect existing carbon sinks from development, particularly peatlands such as those remaining in the north of South Cambridgeshire district. We welcome recognition of the importance of peatlands as a carbon store and the role of other habitats such as woodlands and grasslands, noting loss and degradation of natural habitats results in the direct loss of carbon stored within them.

As indicated above we recommend that the Plan takes a more holistic approach to securing multi- functional benefits for climate change, flood management, water resources and water quality through the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. Natural solutions can achieve significant additional benefits for biodiversity, green infrastructure and associated health and wellbeing benefits, enhanced landscapes and soil resources.

Biodiversity and green spaces
We strongly support the proposed biodiversity and green spaces policies and the inclusion of Figure 53 depicting the existing Greater Cambridge green infrastructure network including designated sites.

We welcome that these policies will help to deliver the aims of the Ox Cam Arc of doubling the area of land managed primarily for nature and to deliver a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain on development sites, beyond the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain requirements of the Environment Act 2021. We agree that Greater Cambridge has a relatively low level of designated sites and priority habitats, highlighting the need for development to deliver net gains beyond the 10% proposed nationally, hence we are fully supportive of minimum 20% BNG ambitions. Our advice is that the Councils, working with key partners, should identify BNG opportunities through the next phases of Plan preparation. This should take the form of a BNG opportunities / requirements map building on the foundations of the Nature Recovery Network and the Cambridge Nature Network. National Habitats Network mapping is available to view at www.magic.defra.gov.uk.

The Councils should also set a landscape / GI framework for the Site Allocations to maximise opportunities for delivery of GI and BNG within the development sites.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Natural England fully supports this policy and requirements for development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain, delivered on site where possible and calculated using the Defra Metric
3.0 or its successor. Requirements for off-site measures to be consistent with the strategic aims of the Greater Cambridge green infrastructure network strategic initiatives are welcomed.

The policy should take a natural capital evidence approach and recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services for climate change, flood risk management, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing, in addition to biodiversity. They main thrust of this policy should be the Plan’s contribution to the Nature Recovery Network / Cambridge Nature Network and the establishment of a framework for the development of a Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

We support proposed requirements for development to avoid adverse impact to site of biodiversity or geological importance and development to mitigate recreational pressure on statutorily designated sites, applying Natural England’s SSSI Impacts Risk Zones (IRZs). The Plan’s biodiversity policy should recognise the hierarchy of international, nationally and locally designated sites across Greater Cambridge. This should be accompanied by a map of the existing ecological network and enhancement opportunity areas to guide site allocations / development away from more sensitive areas and to identify opportunities for developers to deliver net biodiversity gain enhancements.

We welcome that the policy will seek wider environmental net gains. These should focus on measures to restore ecological networks, enhance ecological resilience and provide an overall increase in natural habitat and ecological features.

Reference should be made to the detailed advice provided in our response to the Issues and Options consultation with regard to protecting and enhancing biodiversity including designated sites, priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally protected species populations. This includes additional detailed advice on embedding biodiversity net gain into the Greater Cambridge Local Plan policies.

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
We welcome the comprehensive and thorough approach taken in developing the GI evidence base for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, including the Opportunity Mapping and the identification of 14 Strategic GI initiatives. The multifunctional benefits of GI are fully recognised, as well as the links between GI provision and the delivery of other strategic policy areas including the wider natural environment, sustainable transport and social inclusion. These threads/links

should continue through future drafts to ensure the value of GI for people and the natural environment is fully reflected in the Local Plan.

The Strategic GI initiatives are comprehensive and capture a wide variety of GI opportunities within the 14 proposals; this range of GI elements and habitats will help to maximise benefits for people and nature through the strategic planning and delivery of GI across Greater Cambridge. We support the emphasis given to blue infrastructure in Strategic Initiatives 1 and 2 given the considerable pressures on Cambridgeshire’s chalk streams and aquifer from agriculture and development. The Chalk Stream Strategy Report1 recently published by CaBA identifies a number of recommendations to protect/restore chalk stream habitats, including those in areas of high population density such as Cambridge. This report may be a useful reference in planning and progressing strategic blue infrastructure initiatives as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

We support the proposed approach to have a distinct GI policy within the Local Plan, rather than a stand-alone SPD. As noted in the Topic Paper, we agree that the policy should require all developments to contribute towards GI and that it should be incorporated into design from an early stage and through all phases of development, with a longer-term plan in place for its management and maintenance. As well as a GI policy, Green Infrastructure should be integrated into other strategic policy areas and Local Plan themes where relevant. This will give weight to the multifunctional role of GI and demonstrate where it can contribute to policy delivery and outcomes (e.g., in climate change adaptation, supporting healthy communities etc). It will also support the role of GI in implementing other mechanisms and tools, such as Biodiversity Net Gain, and may help in targeting and prioritising opportunities for GI creation and enhancement.

In addition to securing GI within individual developments, the Local Plan should also provide a framework for proposals to contribute to / link up with the wider Strategic Initiatives, including the ‘dispersed initiatives’ 10-14 (e.g., ‘Expanding the Urban Forest’). Consideration should also be given to potential join-ups on cross-boundary projects and, in time, how the strategic GI network in Greater Cambridge may contribute to greenspace at the regional level (as one of the 5 Ox-Cam counties). There may also be overlaps with other initiatives, such as the Nature Recovery Network, where Cambridgeshire’s GI resource can make an important contribution (such as that highlighted in Strategic Initiative 3 for the Gog Magog Hills and Chalkland fringe).

We note from the Part 2 Recommendations Report that there are several points for further consideration, including the funding mechanisms required to ensure that all developments include GI and contribute towards the strategic initiatives. Funding mechanisms (e.g., developer contributions) should be embedded in policy where required and should be identified as early as possible to ensure that benefits are secured long-term. For example, the policies for major allocations will need to include specific requirements for the funding / delivery of the strategic GI ahead of the developments being occupied so that these are clear from the outset. The report presents a number of potential funding sources, including land use planning obligations (e.g., S106) agri-environment streams (such as ELMS) and any ad-hoc opportunities that may arise through partnership working. The increasing emphasis on nature-based solutions may also bring in new revenue streams to support strategic projects, given that many NBS will require a landscape scale / ‘ecosystem’ approach. The costings for the delivery of the GI and biodiversity aspects of the Local Plan could be included in the IDP so that the investment required to bring about delivery is clear and transparent from an early stage and factored into development proposals. Given the significant scale of the work required, consideration should also be given to how the land will be secured to deliver the GI initiatives, whether through direct purchase, lease or management agreements. A long-term approach to the management and maintenance of GI (ideally in perpetuity) also needs to be factored in from an early stage.

Alongside its value for natural capital and placemaking, green infrastructure provides alternative natural greenspaces that can help alleviate and buffer recreational pressures on protected sites. We welcome the recognition of the recreational pressure impacts across Greater Cambridge, and

1 1 Catchment Based Approach (October 2021) Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy: Main Report. See: New strategy launched to protect chalk streams - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

the Strategic Initiatives aimed at addressing these (e.g., the Coton corridor and multifunctional GI corridors, Strategic Initiatives 7-8). We support the development of clear policy requirements to address these significant pressures (as suggested in the Topic Paper).

Given the Local Plan’s strong emphasis on GI and the widespread benefits that it can achieve, we feel there is clear value in having a recognised GI standard in place. A standard would help to guide and inform GI planning and delivery and provide a consistent benchmark on quality across different scales/locations of development. It would also support the recommendation in the report for a GI-led design approach to new development. A standard could be supported by other documents, e.g., Local Design Guides, to ensure that nature is fully built into design through the provision of high-quality green infrastructure. Natural England is currently developing a Green Infrastructure Framework to set standards for green space and access to natural greenspaces, as well as a Design Guide and mapping data2 to support this work. We would encourage the use of these resources to guide and inform development of strategic Green Infrastructure and policies for Greater Cambridge. The Framework of GI Standards and products are due for launch in summer/autumn 2022, with a pre-release of the beta mapping and the principles of good green infrastructure in December 20213.

Natural England fully supports the proposed inclusion of policies to improve tree canopy cover, enhance river corridors and protect and enhance open spaces. We advise that robust policy requirements should be included to secure delivery of enhancements through development to ensure the achievement of multi-functional benefits for climate change, biodiversity, water quality, access. As indicated in our comments at the Issues and Options stage tree planting needs to be targeted in appropriate locations and considered in the context of wider plans for nature recovery. Consideration should be given to ecological impacts and the opportunities to create alternative habitats that could deliver better enhancements for people and wildlife, and store carbon effectively. Where woodland habitat creation is appropriate, consideration should be given to natural regeneration, and ‘rewilding’ for the economic and ecological benefits this can achieve.
Any tree planting should use native and local provenance tree species suitable for the location. Natural England advocates an approach which seeks to increase biodiversity and green infrastructure generally, not simply planting of trees, and protecting / enhancing soils, particularly peat soils.

For further advice and guidance on green infrastructure please refer to our comments at the Issues and Options consultation stage.

Wellbeing and inclusion
Natural England is fully supportive of the proposed policies including WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments. Our advice is that the policy should include strong links to the importance of adequate level and quality of accessible green infrastructure for people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Great places
Natural England supports the proposed Great Places policies. We welcome the establishment of a Place and Design Quality Panel to conduct a site typologies study to understand, protect, utilise and enhance the valued characteristics of different areas in the plan, with the intention of using this information to raise design standards to ensure development reflects and enhances Cambridge’s distinctive landscape and townscape character.

We support Policy GP/LC Protection and enhancement of landscape character. Natural England is pleased to see that the Greater Cambridge landscape character assessments have been updated and will provide an up-to-date evidence base for the development of policy GP/LC. Existing retained policies form the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan NH/1, NH/2 and NH/13 and policy 8 of the Cambridge Local Plan should be reviewed and updated in the light of these updated landscape

2 See the GI Framework Mapping Portal: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/GreenInfrastructure/Home.aspx 3 How Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework can help create better places to live - Natural England (blog.gov.uk)

character assessments to ensure they reflect the most recent baseline evidence.

Policy GP/LC seeks to identify, protect and enhance locally valued landscapes. Any locally designated landscapes, e.g., Areas of Greater Landscape Value, should be identified within the plan and given appropriate policy protection to protect and enhance them and to ensure that development reflects their distinctive character. It is not the role of Natural England to define locally valued landscapes – this is for LPAs and their communities. However, it should be noted that NE considers World Heritage Sites designated for their natural interest, local landscape designations and Inheritance Tax Exempt land to be locally valued. Therefore, these areas should be identified and included on policy maps showing locally designated landscapes along with any ‘Protected views’.

The Strategic Spatial Options Assessment appears to have considered a wide range of options based on up-to-date evidence on landscape and townscape character considerations. We support this approach which is useful in identifying and considering key landscape issues early in the Plan- making process, to feed into the Sustainability Appraisal. We note that the appraisal of the strategic spatial options is based on the interim draft findings of the emerging Landscape Character Assessment. We trust that the preliminary conclusions will be updated following completion of this work. The analysis also notes that recommendations are provided for strategic landscape mitigation and enhancement for each of the strategic spatial options. Natural England supports the proposal to identify specific mitigation as part of more detailed studies in locating and designing future development.

We are generally supportive of policies to protect and enhance the Cambridge Green Belt, achieve high quality development and establish high quality landscape and public realm.

Jobs
Natural England supports proposed policy J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land. We welcome recognition of soil as a valuable resource and key element of the environmental ecosystem which requires protection, in accordance with paragraph 174 of the NPPF. We note that the protection of peat soils is addressed under the climate change theme discussed above.

Beyond the wider water resource / supply issue, discussed above, we have no substantive comments on the other proposed policies. However, policies will need to include appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity.

Homes
Beyond the wider water resource / supply issue we have no specific comments to make on these proposed policies subject to the inclusion of appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity. Residential development should also contribute towards delivery of the Strategic GI Initiatives.

Infrastructure
Natural England supports proposed policy I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity for the environmental and health benefits this could achieve including reduced emissions, air quality and climate change benefits.

We have no substantive comments on the other proposed policies subject to the inclusion of appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Natural England supports preparation of the HRA Report by LUC (August 2021). We welcome that this incorporates a screening assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The Screening stage

identifies likely significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other policies and proposals, for several plan policies. These include:
• Physical damage and loss (offsite) – in relation to Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.
• Non-physical disturbance (offsite) – in relation to Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.
• Recreation – in relation to Wicken Fen Ramsar SAC and Fenland SAC.
• Water Quantity and Quality – in relation to Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC.
The Appropriate Assessment concludes no adverse effect on site integrity as follows: Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC
Subject to the following safeguards and mitigation measures being implemented:
• Completion of bat surveys for site allocations identified with moderate or high potential to support barbastelle to determine the ecological value of these sites in relation to this bat species and to inform specific mitigation proposals.
• There is a commitment in the plan that proposed development will avoid key habitat features likely to be used by this species and to create and enhance suitable habitat for this species.
• It is also recommended that policy wording in the plan is strengthened to include specific inclusion of the safeguard measures detailed above and that Policy BG/BG Biodiversity and geodiversity is strengthened to include specific reference that mitigation provided should be suitable to the level of protection afforded to designated sites.

Wicken Fen Ramsar site and Fenland SAC
The Appropriate Assessment concludes no adverse effect on integrity as a result of increased recreational pressure provided that the following safeguards and mitigation measures are required by the plan and successfully implemented:
• A commitment in the plan to ensure that development within 20km of the Ramsar site and SAC to provide sufficient suitable alternative natural greenspace in line with advice from Natural England and that there should be specific detail on the policy on the appropriate quantity and quality of open spaces and how delivery and management in perpetuity will be secured.

The Appropriate Assessment is currently unable to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC, with regard to water quantity and quality, pending the provision of further evidence through the Greater Cambridge IWMS and the WRE IWMP.

We welcome that the HRA has provided a detailed consideration of air quality impacts, associated with Plan development, for the relevant European sites. This is based on best practice Highways England Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) LA 105 Air quality guidance and considers the potential for traffic-related emissions on the affected road network based on traffic modelling data, in line with the advice provided by Natural England at the Issues and Options stage. Whilst the assessment has ruled out likely significant effects on all relevant European sites Natural England has been unable to carry out a detailed review of this information and will provide comments at the next stage of Plan consultation.

Please note that Natural England is reviewing the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC to take into account the findings of emerging SAC barbastelle tracking surveys being undertaken for major development schemes. It will also take into consideration the availability of suitable foraging resource which is considered to be quite scarce in the local area. In the meantime, until the IRZ is formally amended, and accompanying guidance prepared, we welcome application of a precautionary 20km buffer zone for SAC barbastelles in line with Natural England’s current local guidance.

Natural England is generally supportive of the interim findings of the HRA and will provide further

advice as the HRA is updated in line with the development of Plan policies and further evidence.

Sustainability Appraisal
Through the Sustainability Appraisal (LUC, October 2021) the preferred policy approaches for the Local Plan have been subject to appraisal against the SA objectives. A range of reasonable alternative options has also been assessed, including alternatives to the preferred policy approaches, Strategic Spatial Options and site options. We welcome that the findings of the HRA will be incorporated into the SA and will provide further insight into biodiversity impacts specifically at designated sites, presenting the opportunity to limit adverse impacts at these locations.

We support recognition of the over-abstraction of water in this region as a serious concern. We welcome acknowledgement that action is required now to ensure the availability of water for future uses without detrimental impact on the environment. Natural England agrees that water resource availability and water quality are inter-related and that these are likely to be exacerbated by the effects of climate change.

The new Local Plan presents the opportunity for new development to come forward at the most appropriate locations in order to avoid detrimental impacts on biodiversity assets. However, we support recognition of potential risks to the ecological network including statutorily designated sites, through degradation and other impacts associated with development.

We agree that the new Local Plan provides the opportunity to promote biodiversity gain and to improve the overall ecological network. Natural England also agrees that opportunities identified through the Green Infrastructure Study (2020) could support delivery of Natural England's Habitat Network nearby opportunity zones and support pollinator corridors. Robust plan policies will need to be developed to secure delivery of these enhancements through all relevant development.

The report concludes that overall, the proposed direction of the Local Plan performs well in sustainability terms with a strong focus on providing an appropriate amount of development and policies focused on minimising carbon emissions, particularly through minimising the need to travel, using land efficiently and making the most of existing and planned sustainable transport links. Natural England suggests this is a premature conclusion in the current absence of strategic water supply infrastructure and sustainable interim measures. Development through the adopted strategy is already being progress without these measures in place. Further development of the Green Infrastructure Initiatives is also required to ensure adequate GI to meet development needs and to alleviate recreational pressures on some of our most sensitive sites habitats. Robust plan policies, to secure timely delivery of this strategic green infrastructure, will be required to demonstrate the Plan’s sustainability.

We generally welcome the policy recommendations presented within Chapter 5 of the SA report including reference to the mitigation hierarchy within Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity and stronger commitments to protect and enhance biodiversity within this and the site allocation policies. However, in our view SA recommendations should focus on the urgent requirement for the identification of strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions and further work to progress the GI Initiatives into real projects.

Natural England will provide further advice as the SA is updated in line with the development of Plan policies and further evidence.

We hope our comments are helpful. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Janet Nuttall on […]. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

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.

NORTH-EAST CAMBRIDGE ‘CORE SITE’, COWLEY ROAD,
CAMBRIDGE


GREATER CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN 'FIRST PROPOSALS' (REG 18)

Written Response on behalf of U&I PLC / TOWN

Monday, 13 December 2021


Classification L2 - Business Data



CONTENTS




0.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 POLICY RESPONSE 2


0.0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 This document sets out written representations on behalf of U+I / TOWN, to a formal consultation by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services (‘GCSP’) on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan ‘First Proposals’ (Preferred Options, Regulation 18, 2021) (‘First Proposals’).
0.2 U+I and TOWN have been selected by Anglian Water and Cambridge City Council (as landowners) to act as Master Developer for the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing Waste Water Treatment Works (‘WWTW’), council depot and golf driving range (to be referred collectively as ‘the Core Site’), for the delivery of approximately 5,500 homes, 23,500m2 of new business space, 13,600m2 of new shops, community, leisure and recreation space (as currently set out in the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (‘NEC AAP’) Proposed Submission Regulation 19 document). For the avoidance of doubt, these representations are submitted on behalf of U+I and TOWN as master developers rather than the landowners themselves.

0.3 Regeneration of the Core Site will be facilitated by the relocation of the WWTW, which will be funded from the Homes England’s Housing Infrastructure Fund, and which is currently going through a Development Consent Order approval process. Anglian Water will be submitting separate representations to the First Proposals, on this specific element.

0.4 U+I/TOWN have been actively involved in the policy formation process of the NEC AAP and are therefore looking to ensure there is policy consistency between the NEC AAP Proposed Submission and First Proposals documents.

0.5 Consideration will need to be given to the prospect of policy inconsistencies between the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (‘GCLP’) and NEC AAP.

0.6 As a point of broad principle, we would request that relevant GCLP policy (particularly where performance standards are stated) provides appropriate wording that defers to more area/site-specific policy, where it is being formed in other Development Plan Documents, such as NEC AAP. In the event of any inconsistency, this will ensure that there is a clear understanding over which policy takes preference. For instance, if a 20% biodiversity net gain (‘BNG’) target is ultimately adopted in GCLP policy, and a minimum 10% BNG is sought in NEC AAP, then there would be a clear signal in the GCLP policy that the NEC AAP policy is the correct standard to apply.



1.0 POLICY RESPONSE

Policy S/JH: Level of Jobs and Housing
OBJECT
1.1 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership acknowledge and support the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area and consider that there is a need to substantially increase housing delivery in order to support economic growth (that is needed to meet the objective of doubling GVA by 2040) and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review). At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.
1.2 These factors support a significantly higher number of homes than are proposed in the preferred ‘medium plus’ growth option of Policy S/JH. It is considered that the ‘medium plus’ growth option makes insufficient upward adjustments to the housing requirement (from Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance) to take into account growth strategies, strategic infrastructure improvements and housing affordability in Greater Cambridge.
1.3 It is suggested that the emerging GCLP should have selected the higher growth level option to support economic growth, address housing affordability, and reduce in-commuting. A higher growth level option would be consistent with the Government’s aspirations for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.
1.4 It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.


Policy S/DS: Development Strategy

SUPPORT

1.5 We broadly support this approach, given that it identifies North-East Cambridge for the creation of new compact city district on brownfield land, noting that it has already been identified for homes and jobs growth.
1.6 However, we are extremely concerned by the ‘Homes’ target for NEC that is stated in the table on page 32, which refers to 3,900 homes between 2020 and 2041. Fundamentally, this is at odds to the trajectory that has been agreed with Homes England as a pre-requisite for the substantial public funding that has been agreed in principle to relocate the WWTW.
1.7 We would therefore instead support a policy that recognises 5,600 homes will be provided on the Core Site by 2041. Consideration will also then need to be given to other housing that is expected to come forward within the NEC AAP.



Policy S/NEC: North-East Cambridge

SUPPORT

1.8 We support this approach but would request that GCLP policy for S/NEC is entirely consistent with NEC AAP. A simple policy that specifies reference to NEC AAP will enable GCLP policy to remain up to date, as and when changes are made through the examination and adoption process.
1.9 We would note that Policy 1 of the NEC AAP Proposed Submission states ‘approximately 8,350 new homes, 15,000 new jobs’, as opposed to ‘up to’ as set out in S/NEC.
1.10 S/NEC policy should therefore be amended to refer to ‘approximately’ and provide a clearer link to NEC AAP.


Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

OBJECT

1.11 The policy wording suggests that there will be a requirement for development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain, which has been based on the South Cambridgeshire District Council Doubling Nature Strategy (2021), the draft Cambridge City Council Biodiversity Strategy 2021 – 2030, and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Environment Principles (2021).
The Environment Act 2021, however, states that a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain should be achieved, and specifies the three forms for doing so:

- Post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat;

- the biodiversity value, in relation to the development, of any registered offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development;

- the biodiversity value of any biodiversity credits purchased for the development;

1.12 Whilst U+I/TOWN recognise the importance in providing significant biodiversity improvements through development, it is considered that the mandatory minimum limit should reflect the legislative target. However, policy could still actively encourage schemes to exceed the minimum, recognising that those that do will be considered as a planning ‘benefit’ of development in sustainability terms (the greater the increase, the greater the weight attached to the assessment of benefit in any planning balance).
1.13 In terms of implications for the Core Site in North-East Cambridge, the NEC Ecology Study (2020) recommended that a target for a net gain of 10% is applied for all developments within NEC. Where this is not achievable within the site boundary then offsite measures should be provisioned.
1.14 By way illustration, a 20% gain to the 36.76 biodiversity units that have been identified in the Ecology Study would result in the need to achieve 44.112 biodiversity credits, in order to satisfy policy requirements. This seems highly ambitious, given the level of density that will need to be achieved across the Core Site to meet NEC strategy objectives. We will continue to make representations on this point as the NEC AAP progresses. GCSP must also consider alternatives to on-site provision where the necessary biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved on site. This could include a range of options including biodiversity net gain ‘credits’ being able to be purchased from other sites.



1.15 Ultimately, the aim of BNG is to leave the natural environment in a measurably better condition than beforehand. Therefore, if it can be robustly demonstrated that on-site provision is not achievable, the opportunity to measurably improve the natural environment of other appropriate receptor sites through off-site provision should still have a significant value attached to it.

Policy WS/HD: Creating Healthy New Developments

SUPPORT

1.16 We broadly support the 10 principles for creating healthy places. The vision for North-East Cambridge is of a healthy, inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a vibrant mix of high quality homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods.
1.17 One of the five strategic objectives of the NEC AAP is for a healthy and safe neighbourhood and notes the principles of the Health New Towns programme.

Policy WS/MU: Meanwhile Uses During Long Term redevelopments

SUPPORT

1.18 We support the inclusion of a Meanwhile Use policy and agree that it can play an important role on strategic development sites. Phases of development can occur over a significant period of time, and therefore utilisation of vacant/redundant land/buildings for social and/or economic purposes can help activate an area and provide short/medium term benefits that might not otherwise be realised.

Policy GP/LC: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character

COMMENT

1.19 The policy notes that ‘the edges of Cambridge and the villages are an important area of transition which require sensitive landscaping to protect the setting of the settlements and to provide a well- defined edge which respects townscape and the countryside beyond’.
1.20 The Core Site at North-East Cambridge will need to be planned to a high density in order to fully achieve the the strategic objectives of the NEC AAP, as well as to hit the quantum of development required under Homes England’s Housing & Infrastructure Fund. This will require a number of buildings that are taller than may otherwise be commonly found in the north of Cambridge (including surrounding villages, such as Milton). The masterplan for the Core Site will take great care in how its development edges interface with the landscape and setting of nearby settlements, as well as adjoining ‘bad neighbour’ uses currently in existence. The policy will need to recognise the strategic objectives of NEC AAP and avoid imposing conditions that could unreasonably restrict development.

Policy GP/QD: Achieving High Quality Development

SUPPORT



Policy GP/QP: Establishing High Quality Landscape and Public Realm

SUPPORT


Policy J/NE: New Employment Development Proposals

SUPPORT

1.21 We broadly support the intent of the policy but consider it essential that GCSP takes a more ambitious approach in seeking to capture and accommodate the substantial demand in office, R&D, lab and associated manufacturing space in the Greater Cambridge area. There is a need to provide sufficient supply in order to meet the balanced homes/jobs requirements and to reflect the high employment density and employment skills these uses engender.
1.22 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Spatial Options Assessment (Housing and Employment Relationships Nov 2021), upon which the homes and jobs growth of the First Proposals has been based (‘Central Growth’), considered a Higher Growth option of 78,742 jobs in the Plan Period. It
noted that ‘this is a plausible but more aspirational growth outcome’. We believe that the Higher Growth option should be pursued to reflect the Combined Authority’s commitment to doubling GVA by 2040 and capitalise on the significant appetite for research/knowledge-based, commercial development in the City.

Policy J/AW: Affordable Workspace and Creative Industries

SUPPORT

Policy H/HD: Housing Density

SUPPORT

Policy H/CB: Self and Custom-build Homes

OBJECT

1.23 The concern we have with this policy is the ability for the Core Site scheme to comply with the amount of Self-build/custom build being sought, given the high-density development that is envisaged. We would seek reference in the policy to wording that reflects the relevant policy in the NEC AAP i.e. to support ‘custom-finish’ as well.


Policy I/ST: Sustainable Transport and Connectivity
SUPPORT

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.

Gladman generally support the protection of special and valued landscapes but have concerns that the proposed policy direction does not provide a suitably balanced approach and could stop sustainable development in the countryside coming forward when needed. The justification for and inclusion of Important Countryside Frontages needs to be robustly evidenced and the policy needs to provide the necessary flexibility at the edge of villages.

See attached document.

The content of this policy is supported by Taylor Wimpey in order to address landscape character through development. It is also positive that the policy references the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment as a clear point of reference in responding to this policy.
A slight amendment is however suggested to the wording to again provide flexibility. The third bullet point is suggested to be amended to state that developments will be required to ‘retain and enhance landscape features within new developments that positively contribute to the quality and character of the area, wherever possible’. The wording as it currently stands suggests that any landscape features on sites should be retained and enhanced, whereas the proposed amendment ensures that features of limited value may be appropriately removed, or indeed where features of value may need to be removed, for example to facilitate access. The proposed wording is consistent with that currently set out under Policy GP/QP.
It is also noted that the policy makes reference to the need for protecting ‘important green gaps’. The only green gap referenced is Longstanton and Northstowe and therefore it is assumed the policy should be updated to refer to a singular gap.

The content of this policy is supported by Countryside in order to address landscape character through development. The proposed development at Fen Ditton will meet the aspirations of the policy and will retain and enhance landscape features within the development as well as creating new features as part of an enhanced landscape framework. It is also positive that the policy references the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment as a clear point of reference in responding to this policy. In considering the suitability of sites for development it will be important that consideration is given to any other known changes in landscape character as a result of development such as infrastructure improvements or other committed developments.
A slight amendment is suggested to the wording to again provide flexibility. The third bullet point is suggested to be amended to state that developments will be required to ‘retain and enhance landscape features within new developments that positively contribute to the quality and character of the area, wherever possible’. The wording as it currently stands suggests that any landscape features on sites should be retained and enhanced, whereas the proposed amendment ensures that features of limited value may be appropriately removed, or indeed where features of value may need to be removed, for example to facilitate access. The proposed wording is consistent with that currently set out under Policy GP/QP.
It is also noted that the policy makes reference to the need for protecting ‘important green gaps’. The only green gap referenced is Longstanton and Northstowe and therefore it is assumed the policy should be updated to refer to a singular gap.

The proposed policy sounds good, but doesn’t take into account how overdevelopment is changing the
landscape. Parks can get saturated with walkers, litter, barbeques, dogs, vehicle noise… overuse is a
tangible change to landscape character.