Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Not Supported.

It is recommended limits are placed on the individual scheme size of developments in Cambridge, Town and Rural Centre’s until such time as the unprecedented amount of growth in Greater Cambridge already in the pipeline (a 37% increase in homes from those existing in 2020) can be evaluated and the realisation of sustainable solutions eg Water, Electricity , health provision, access to education etc. ; new sustainable public transport infrastructure are known/resolved.

It is recommended Limits could be specified in line with the Windfall allowance calculated. The Vision & Aims  of the Local Plan are at risk should there be no limit on the size and scale of  schemes brought forward and approved.

An intensified and creative approach to sustainable transport options  , use / improvement of existing rail networks/services for example is recommended to address the CO2 objectives more so, than simply squeezing greater numbers of  people into Greater Cambridge. The Aims of the Local Plan : ‘Wellbeing & Social inclusion’ and ‘Great Places’ are of particular relevance and at risk here. As the CPIER (2018) report states high levels of economic growth will not be achieved if the good things about Cambridge are lost.

The intent of Policy GP/LC is supported in general. However, this does not appear to be reflected throughout the draft Local Plan due to the failure to consider the consequential impact of the North East Cambridge Development on the Green Belt and corresponding Landscape Character Areas as a result of relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).
The policy direction proposes to ‘Respect, retain or enhance local landscape character (as set out in the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment)’.https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2021-08/LandscapeCharacterAssessment_GCLP_210831_Part_A.pdf

The policy is understood to be required as ‘The Local Plan needs to ensure the varied character of different parts of the area is properly considered in planning decisions. Developments should respond to the local landscape character and take opportunities for enhancement.’
Responses to the First Conversation highlighted we should require developments to be in keeping with the landscape, informed by Landscape Character Assessments. We should include policies which seek to protect sensitive and valued landscapes.
Policy NH/2 of the Adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan states that: ‘Development will only be permitted where it respects and retains, or enhances the local character and distinctiveness of the local landscape and of the individual National Character Area in which is it located.’
The supporting Landscape character Assessment chapter 6A covering the Fen Ditton Fen Edge Chalklands Landscape character Area includes within its Specific Landscape Guidelines to ‘Ensure development is in keeping with the open, rural character’.
The proposed WWTP relocation would result in a major industrial plant located in Landscape Character Area 6A, including towers currently planned to be up to 26m high surrounded by a circular bund and fencing on top with a combined height of circa 11 m, in an area classified as Fen Edge Chalklands. This is clearly in breach of Policy NH/2 of the 2018 South Cambridgeshire Adopted Local Plan and presumably its proposed successor, Policy GP/LC.

If the current emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan is to retain an appropriate level of credibility, the consequential effects of the proposed North East Cambridge development and corresponding WWTP relocation should be considered within the Local Plan to fully assess the impacts under policy GP/LC and be included in the Greater Cambridge Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment (2021) under Policy GP/HA.

Agree in principle but requires clarification in related areas of the emerging Local Plan.
The proposed policy captures the importance of restricting development which could lead to the irreversible loss of the best agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 or 3a) and is reinforced by the concerns raised in response to the First Conversation, regarding carbon sequestration, biodiversity and our ability to meet our food growing needs.
The proposed policy is understood to follow Policy NH/3: Protecting Agricultural Land, in the current adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.  Section 1a. of adopted Policy NH/3 states:
Planning permission will not be granted for development which would lead to the irreversible loss of Grades 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land unless:
a. Land is allocated for development in the Local Plan;
Clearly, it would be inappropriate to allocate agricultural land in the Local Plan for developments that are still under investigation, such as the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant relocation. However, in the context of the proposed North East Cambridge development, the emerging Local Plan should support the principle of adopted Policy NH/3 by clearly identifying the corresponding agricultural land and Green Belt cost that would require allocation in the Local Plan as a consequence of the proposed North East Cambridge development to allow a comprehensive assessment to be made.

Not supported: mistakes have been made in the past with very High Density housing, typically achieved though ‘high rise’ with very limited Green Infrastructure. The impact on existing communities with a multiple increase in population size in such  a small City as Cambridge (just 5 miles in diameter) is yet to be tested and could prove to be a major strategy error. If Cambridge loses ‘what is good to live here’(and visit) , the economic objectives may not be met as companies and people go elsewhere.  This is of particular relevance to the size and scale of S/NEC  / NECAAP

General Support – however a far more ambitious approach to GCP in partnership with Combined Authority providing innovative and sustainable transport to the wider community including Market Towns to enable sustainable commuting into Greater Cambridge is recommended. Large developments next to places of work in such a small area as Cambridge will have environmental and health and well- being costs to existing communities and may in itself prove an ill-advised strategy in the longer term for Greater Cambridge. The Ox-Cam Arc project , new transport systems home working etc., within this plan period could provide less high risk  solutions to the benefit of the economy of our Market Towns and should be pursued more creatively and robustly , Cambridge growing economy to the benefit of the wider region.   The policy to reduce CO2 emissions by principally putting very high numbers of people at unprecedented levels next to work areas given the small scale of Greater Cambridge/Cambridge City lacks in the period to 2041 is not fulfilling or making use of the promise of large scale public funding for transport infrastructure to support the commitment made by joint councils to these unprecedented high levels of growth. What makes Cambridge attractive and in part what drives the economy is at risk (CPIER 2018)

Supported : Note: Note Fulfilment of S/NEC Policy will impact on River Cam corridor landscape from new housing developments  on NEC site and relocation of CWWTP to Honey Hill, both partnership developments will be highly visible from the River Cam Corridor.

Supported . Note- fulfilment of S/NEC Policy through the relocation of CWWTP to Honey Hill is contrary to this policy: the relocation will lead to adverse effects eg Odour to residents and users of open space : even if ‘negligible odour levels’ are attained on site boundary these levels of 1.5 are still experienced by 50% of people and will extend beyond site boundary/odour map contours depending on wind conditions etc.

This also applies to Noise and Vibration

Policy needs clarifying. While Policy S/CE Cambridge East is shown on the map (page 94) there is no reference to the either the housing or employment afforded by S/CE in the descriptions. It is important to include these developments to prevent encroachment on the Green Belt and to retain the individual character of Teversham village.