Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Recognise preference for brownfield land but such land can have high biodiversity value which needs to be mitigated.

If proposals relate to solar or windfarms the policy need to relate back to CC/RE and protection of landscape.

The policy direction includes establishing a hierarchy of centres across Greater Cambridge. This must also include the centres in the new settlements and new communities. The policy needs to support the provision and safeguarding of new centres in the new settlements to enable the residents to be able to walk or cycle to services and not have to use their car and travel to other centres.

With the increase in permitted development rights, it is becoming increasingly difficult to control the retention of shops and services. Consideration should be given in the policy saying that shops and services which provide a vital service will be protected through a condition removing permitted development rights or serving an article 4 direction.

We would like to see recognition that some natural and cultural visitor attractions have a carrying capacity beyond which they will be harmed. This is a common and recognised problem around the world as tourists damage the thing that they came to see. This can be direct harm, such as the wearing of physical fabric, or indirect harm, such as the impact of visitor facilities or sometimes the sheer number of people. What assessment has been carried out to understand the carrying capacity of some of Cambridge’s attractions, such as the historic centre and the River Cam? How does this carrying capacity relate to any increase in provision of visitor accommodation/facilities? Should there be a financial contribution from new accommodation development towards mitigating some of the impacts (eg supporting visitor management to disperse visitors from overcrowded locations)?

Regarding “New visitor attractions in Cambridge City Centre and South Cambridgeshire’s countryside will be supported subject to criteria such as sustainable travel.” This seems to contradict with “Proposals for new or extended tourist facilities and visitor attractions (excluding accommodation) in the countryside of South Cambridgeshire should utilise and enhance the area’s existing tourism assets, and show an identified need for a rural location.”. It is also unclear what would be classed as a visitor attraction, in theory this could include something like a new country park? The location of rural attractions may be determined by a natural or cultural asset, which can’t be located anywhere else. This might be located where there is no reliable public transport and we would be concerned that policy wording for visitor attraction did not conflict with policy wording regarding the delivery of green infrastructure.

CambridgePPF support that first home exception sites will not be allowed in greenbelt.

The proposed policy direction is supported; however the policy needs to be strongly worded and vigorously applied to prevent any detrimental impact on existing neighbours through changes to the character of the area and massing of structures and through loss of trees. Under the current Local Plan, Cambridge Past, Present & Future has witnessed approval of developments which have resulted in significant loss of trees. E.g. 21/00537 Chesterton was approved, which will result in the loss of trees and impact on conservation area and listed buildings contrary to advice from the council’s Conservation Team.

It would be helpful if the supporting text could give advice as to what is meant by a replacement dwelling in the green belt not being 'materially larger'.

The document provides a list of new technologies but does not address the supply of utilities. The Local Plan document comments on the need for grid reinforcement but there are no comments for example in the Local Plan regarding continuing use of Natural Gas or conversion to hydrogen. Water supply and sewage handling does not appear to be considered although they are an essential part of infrastructure provision, the same is true of “green infrastructure”.

CambridgePPF support this, however one of the greatest challenges is that house builders still consider that providing space for two cars per household is necessary to maximise sale price/volume. This results in (large) developments being laid out to accommodate those cars through the development, leading to a development form that supports car use. Active and public transport are then fitted around that layout (eg provision of cycle or bus lanes). A sea change in the industry is required to design differently and we would like to see policies that would be strong enough to refuse applications that have not taken active travel and public transport as the starting point for the layout of their schemes.

Paragraph 5.5, “Vehicle parking should include electric charging infrastructure (with appropriate grid reinforcement)”. Vehicle parking must include electric charging infrastructure if Government targets for electric vehicles are to be met.
There must be a clear way forward developed for grid reinforcement in the Greater Cambridge Area if sufficient power is to be available for vehicle charging points and for example domestic heating systems using air source pumps.
A minimum of 7KWatts is required for charging points. For communal points, a minimum of 20 KWatts is necessary to accommodate short term parking.
The provision of EV charging points in new developments needs to reflect emerging national policy.
The policy also needs to be mindful of Making Connections consultation and proposal for congestion charging and the provision of parking within potential charging areas.