Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

We are concerned that growth remains a priority in the plan when in order to counter climate change we actually just need to consume less and build less. Zero emissions should be the target rather than carbon neutrality which allows for pollution as long as there is a counter balance.

General vision is to support and protect existing nature sites. Sadly many developments will be built on and take away well-established green open areas - fields north of Cherry Hinton and airport which have been home to
vast amounts of wildlife, wild flowers, streams with frogs, tadpoles, birds,hedgehogs, bees and butterflies for years.
The proposed policy approach to Bio/Geodiversity (section 3) which centres on a 20% minimum net gain is ambitious, realistic, and welcomed. However, there is no clear policy to explain what procedures will be in place should overall progress falls short of this target. In section 3.5, 3rd bullet point, there is a typo (off/on-site) but in any case the policy should prohibit off-site where-ever possible since this can be leveraged as a loop-hole by small developments at the detriment to local parishes and neighbourhood plans.
It is disappointing to see the Councils not yet have adopted its own metrics to assess environmental net gain, particular given the importance of the local ecosystem. Such a metric would assist the Councils better assess the impact of developments encroaching on green belt, such as proposals to relocate Cambridge United football stadium, the Newmarket Rd P&R, and sewerage works. As a parish council, we oppose the re-location of the P&Ride site to the Teversham side of airport Way, as this will encroach on the Green belt and encourage further connected development, as the current P&Ride site has.
Recognition of recreational impact as a "significant issue" is welcome and future clarification of the policy must include a focus on pro-active repair and maintenance, both of which are currently lacking.

In section 4.4 "Green Infrastructure, Evidence Base" there is no mention of the pressure from the significant number of large housing developments on pressures to the chalk stream network. This is a major omission that needs to be addressed urgently. It is also disappointing not to see mention of quantitative targets throughout this section. A simpler route to obtaining planning permission for community orchards and allotments is required.
It is positive to see policy for green infrastructure explore the proposal for all significant developments to align to the Building With Nature standard. This will strengthen the framework for protecting green spaces identified in local neighbourhood plans, for example.
It is not justified to reject the alternative approach to restrict development within respective GI strategic areas on the basis that these areas are too broad. To redress the balance wherein the value of GI is greater than that of new developments, the policy should be to define the strategic areas more specifically.
The poor tree canopy cover across Cambridgeshire is well known (e.g. Woodland Trust) and the target of 19% TC by 2030 is welcome. However, it is disappointing to not see in the Evidence Base a more recent re-evaluation of the scientific and biodiversity value of all wet woodland on clay soils (e.g. Hayley Wood). While there are many welcome and well-intentioned policy proposals for woodlands, there is a greater need for specific quantitative targets that align to the BNG target as well as the TC target. A far greater emphasis on improving the quality of woodland and hedgerow is required. There are many local public woodlands and hedgerows which are low in diversity because of poor maintenance (as evidenced by overgrowth of ivy).
It is welcome to see in section 7 a recognition that wellbeing and open spaces are linked, particularly a focus on formal sports pitches. It is surprising that there is no mention of partnerships with major charities, especially the football foundation. Furthermore, while reference to strategic sporting facilities is made, there is no mention of support for grass roots clubs and this omission should be rectified.

One thing however appeared missing, as although there was emphasis on ‘access’ no mention was made of public transport provision ie buses. For the over 65s (which are increasing in number) but also for younger low paid workers, transport to any services and social support is a huge part of wellbeing. Lower housing density, increased dwelling space standards and access to private amenity space (gardens in normal speak) are also essential to achieving well being.
We have some concerns about heritage sites and conservation areas which are due a review. We would like to see proper protection for many of the great places in our district.
There seems to be mention of jobs without any real examination of what these might be in COVID-influenced times. It would be good to see community work hubs similar to WeWork, so that instead of working from home people have an option where they can easily access meeting rooms, printers and an opportunity to network in their neighbourhoods.

We have some concerns about heritage sites and conservation areas which are due a review. We would like to see proper protection for many of the great places in our district.

There seems to be mention of jobs without any real examination of what these might be in COVID-influenced times. It would be good to see community work hubs similar to WeWork, so that instead of working from home people have an option where they can easily access meeting rooms, printers and an opportunity to network in their neighbourhoods.

Continuous requirement for housing - something should be done regarding properties being bought to rent or as an investment and standing empty.
New builds / developments could require owners to live in the property rather than rent / buy to let - taxable penalty to deter. Whilst so many properties are bought with no intention to be lived in by the owner the
housing shortage will never end, further development using more and more land will continue to be sought.

Policy H/AH
Affordable housing and dwelling mix
As much as legally allowed of the "affordable" housing should be truly affordable, not just use that name.
That clearly means that all "affordable" housing should be at social rents, and not "affordable" rents or discounted purchase.

A policy is also needed to ensure that the number of "affordable" flats/houses is proportionate to the commercial part of the site - not like the "Wing" site, where the ratio of commercial flats to houses is almost the inverse correlation to the "affordable" dwellings.

All "affordable" housing should be council housing, to provide security of tenure, accountability, and efficiency.

Policy H/SS
Residential space standards and accessible homes
Paragraph 1:
The adoption of the Nationally Described Residential Space standard is welcome. The councils should lobby government to make this part of the building control regulations, rather than an optional part of the planning system.

Paragraph 2:
This is a loophole, and these homes should always be subject to the above standard.

Paragraph 5:
This policy is welcome but must urgently be backed with generous minimum private amenity space standards.
We have for a long time been building rabbit hutches with little or no private amenity space, and these are the slums of tomorrow.

Policy H/HD
Housing density
We need to get away from the obsession with higher densities.
We have for a long time permitted far too dense building, which has led to lower internal space and external private amenity space standards, leading to family homes totally unsuitable for bringing up a family (i.e. the "Swifts" development at Fulbourn) and a myriad of "Rabbit hutch" type blocks of flats.
These are the slums of tomorrow, with a built-in encouragement of anti-social behaviour, crime, anxiety and mental ill-health.
We need proper family homes with generous gardens.

We have concern about WiFi Broadband provision. In our village the signal is still not up to scratch and often drops. This should be a priority not least because it will support home working and jobs.

We remain unconvinced that realistic traffic modelling has been used. Roads of concern - Newmarket Road / Coldhams Lane, main roads into city which already struggle with high volumes and are gridlocked every weekend and rush hour. Coldhams Lane, south of the airport, is a particular concern as parts are very narrow with a small footpath and no cycle path. Marleigh, land north of Cherry Hinton and Marshalls developments will have big impact to these roads and volume of traffic regardless of the optimistic wish to minimise private car use.
There is a huge challenge to get a balance with wildlife / people in the urban environment - new
developments may offer a green space with a park but how many households have gardens? More gardens are better for more wildlife. We understand that grassland has decreased from 30% in 1930s to less than 10% in 2018, this is a massive loss and has a negative impact on the environment and quality of life / mental health benefits. We are concerned about flooding as a result of the loss of soakaway green areas city wide.
On the positive side it is good to see there are proposals making use of a number of "brown field" sites within Cambridge for development (as this could well reduce pressure on rural areas like ours), however we would question the benefits of some of the sites, such as retail parks (for example suggesting developing the Beehive centre and the retail park opposite, where Homebase/Currys/Argos are) and the football ground (which of course has been proposed before), for potential development as they would have a detrimental effect on the local facilities and may well result in more rural development (if the retail outlets look for new sites).
Also, very little regard is given to the traffic issues more housing will produce, it seems to assume that somehow magically people who move into these developments will not have cars and will all walk or use bikes/public transport. There is policy promising there better public transport will be provided but, especially for the Newmarket road/Coldham's Lane sites identified, the roads are already at capacity and things like adding bus lanes will make congestion worse if people do continue to use cars.
There is also a proposal for an industrial development on Land South of Coldham's Lane (effectively expanding the Norman Way industrial estate). Again our worry here would be supporting infrastructure, especially as industry will only make limited use of public transport and instead adds lorries etc. to the roads. Alternatively this could be a new retail park (if areas such as the Beehive are redeveloped) which would again increase not decrease car use in the area.
Finally, the plan mentions the brownfield housing developments will be enforced to "create character", but does not really say how - if building and street designs that have "character" all well and good, but we suspect in practice we would end up with blocks of flats like the ones on Marleigh which do not really match the surrounding area.

Teversham is on the eastern edge of Cambridge and will be directly affected by at least four if not five of the planned developments (Marleigh, Bellway, Cambridge East, Coldhams Lane and Ida Dawin). We are concerned that this is overdevelopment. Whilst affordable housing is mentioned, we would like assurances that this is includes real social housing and keyworker housing.

We are concerned that much of the active travel comments refer to cycling. In our parish we have quite a few horse riders. It would be good to have more inclusion and consideration for bridleways and horse users.