Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

(Minerals and Waste) S/SCP/WHD – All within a MSA for sand & gravel; part within a MSA for chalk. Most of the site is within the settlement boundary. Railway, A505 and existing residential and other sensitive properties would be a constraint to working the minerals.

(Minerals and Waste) S/RRA/ML – All within a MSA for chalk. The site is adjacent to residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/MF – All within a MSA for sand & gravel. WWLP Site is adjacent to residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/CR – All within a MSA for chalk. Situated between Melbourn Science Park and residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/BBP – Within CA for Uttons Drove Water Recycling Area (WRA). MWLP Policy 16 applies.

(Minerals and Waste) S/RRP/L – Only very small part at east of site within a MSA for sand & gravel.

In May 2019, Cambridgeshire County Council declared a Climate and Environment Emergency, and recognises that this is a priority with both local and central government. The Council is therefore supportive of the inclusion of this as one of the overarching themes.

(Education) A change to the Building Regulations which came into force on 1 January 2019 means that all new buildings owned and occupied by public authorities must be ‘Nearly Zero Energy Buildings’, and policies and specifications of all buildings reflect this. To achieve compliance, the Council’s preferred policy is a combination of different mechanisms including achieving at least 6 BREEAM energy performance “Ene01” credits, designing buildings to achieve an EPC rating of A or better and/or installing on-site renewable energy generation sized to meet a significant proportion (>80%) of the building’s expected energy use. Policy CC/NZ is less flexible with specific targets set for non-domestic buildings, including schools.
Delivering schools which are ‘Nearly Zero Carbon’ buildings has increased the capital cost of construction by 10%. With further, and more specific targets, such as those above, and notwithstanding advances in technology, additional cost is likely to be incurred. The Council would therefore require associated policies to make clear the expectation on developers meeting such costs through section 106 agreements.

(Flood Risk Team) Support the mention of SuDS in this policy. It would be good to ensure that drainage and SuDS are included in this. We are receiving more and more queries on whether surface water proposals are going to include consideration for climate change, so having this written in policy would be useful.

(Education) Policy CC/FM includes the expectation that developments will be required to provide integrated water management, including sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). The Council would be supportive of this being incorporated into the design of new schools. However, it should be acknowledged that this is likely to increase the size of the site required for a school. Currently, it is Council Policy to request the minimum site size required to enable delivery of a school which meets the standards set by the Department for Education (DfE), including suitable outdoor space to enable physical education in accordance with the school curriculum and to enable pupils to play outside. As this is a statutory requirement and delivered through the planning process via Sport England, there would be a statutory planning objection if not incorporated into the design. Including SuDS within the design would require an additional land allocation. Costs and space would also need to be incorporated into s106 agreements to ensure children’s safeguarding if, for example, SuDS ponds were to be on site rather than using attenuation tanks.
The Council therefore feels it would be most appropriate for any targets to be incorporated in policy to be the subject of a technical assessment on their achievability and cost, before being formally adopted.

(Flood Risk Team) The direction of the policy is going in a good direction, taking inspiration of the Cambridge City Local Plan 2018, as this holds good practice for the design of SuDS systems.
There should be an emphasis on managing surface water close to the source, on the surface and within open SuDS where practicable. I note it is included, but this should be the basis of all surface water schemes.
There is no mention of water quality in the proposed policy direction section. This should be included within the local plan as a standalone point within the flood management policy. This could include the use of terms such as the SuDS Management Train, focussing on providing multi stages of treatment through cascading structures. This is the way that developments should be going in managing their surface water.
While climate change is covered in Policy CC/DC, it would be worth including the surface water systems should be designed with an allowance of climate change included
The document is very much setting out the policy directions, it would be good to know the general set out of the proposed policy, as the listed versions of these policies are useful in interpreting, signposting and referring stakeholders to for information or as part of a scheme.
Reference should ideally be made to the Cambridgeshire Flood and Water Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), or any subsequent version of this, which is adopted South Cambs and Cambridge City individually.
It is noted that the policy will not need to repeat items covered by the NPPF, however, reference should be made to this within the document.

(Minerals and Waste) This policy may interact with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan, in respect of energy from waste and district heating. Early consultation about the wording of this policy would be appreciated.

(Minerals and Waste) Inclusion of this policy is supported, however it is suggested that the Circular Economy is given priority over Reducing Waste in the title, as it has a much wider scope. It is also suggested that the Councils may wish to consider explicitly linking this policy with Policy CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings; as these two policies interact with each other.
The waste hierarchy proposed by the Draft Plan reads “Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle”. It is appreciated that this is based on the “5 r’s”, but to avoid confusion the Councils may wish to either clarify in the policy or supporting text that ‘refuse’ is seeking to minimise avoidable resource use and not the refusal of planning permissions or development outright. The waste hierarchy as set out in Appendix A of the National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014) is: Prevention, Preparing for Re-use, Recycling, Other recovery, Disposal.
Reference to the requirement for the RECAP guide is welcomed and accords with Policy 14 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP).
The mineral and waste planning authority (MWPA) has noted that Policy CC/6: Construction Methods which embedded consideration of waste management within the South Cambridgeshire Plan appears, by being embedded in that Plan to have been particularly effective, and inclusion of this policy is welcomed.
When referring to resources to be considered, the MWPA wishes that aggregate and other minerals are included and highlighted for consideration by applicants.
The MWPA would welcome further discussion on this topic, potentially as part of a SoCG.

(Education) Where facilities are to be used by the school and the wider community, there are a number of associated safeguarding concerns. For this reason, the Council would strongly suggest that separate access arrangements are planned and these would be expected to be fully funded by the developer to mitigate the level of risk. There will also need to be early engagement from all parties to ensure that there is a mutually agreed basis on which access to the facilities will be managed.