Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Broadly supportive since the Biomedical Campus reflects Cambridge’s specific strengths and should be supported to meet growth aspirations.
Cambridge South will enhance sustainable travel from within and outside GC.

Broadly supportive but would OBJECT if any of these developments encroach on the Green Belt or endanger the individual character of Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Teversham villages.

Broadly supportive since the availability of the Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne and Bourn sites are major opportunities to meet growth aspirations with good or potential sustainable travel opportunities.

HIGHLY SUPPORTIVE of the exclusion of any sites for development in Fen Ditton parish other than Marleigh and in area of airport which are as described elsewhere.

HIGHLY SUPPORTIVE of the exclusion of any sites for development the green belt or village envelope and conservation areas in Fen Ditton parish. The Plan accords with Parish policies on development especially in Green Belt – specifically extant green lungs/corridors including Ditton Meadows, in backland areas and in the adopted Conservation Plan.

Broad support for Policy CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings.
Minor OBJECT that the Policies as written are rather aspirational than achievable and needs refinement of issues such as:
• avoidance of new build. This is a higher priority since this avoids embodied carbon, One, rather dated, source describes 65to 80% of such emissions lasting 20 to 200 years. The economic and housing growth targets proposed in the Plan are excessive. The proposed relocation of the WWTW is a second prime example of avoidable new build.
• reuse of existing buildings should be emphasised (Grafton Centre?)
• a ‘brownfield first’ policy for new building
• halting the use of scarce farm land for solar energy generation
• recognising that not all electricity has the same cost and carbon content. Peak power is much worse the shorter the time period over which it occurs also depending on the time of day and year when it occurs.
Solar installations might be mandated on all industrial buildings, new and existing. The cost, cost sharing and carbon footprint of district heating/cooling needs to be investigated and a comparison made of air source and ground source HPs. It is insufficient, even if convenient, to treat each building in isolation.
The role of the grid to supply part of the demand must be described since this has access to low cost and carbon sources as well as providing resilience.
Does the Plan envisage “smart” demands that avoid short duration peaks in the system?
The role of hot water storage should be described since this avoids use of power in short duration peak periods.

Broad support for Policy CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings.
Minor OBJECT that the Policies as written are rather aspirational than achievable and needs refinement of issues such as:
• avoidance of new build. This is a higher priority since this avoids embodied carbon, One, rather dated, source describes 65to 80% of such emissions lasting 20 to 200 years. The economic and housing growth targets proposed in the Plan are excessive. The proposed relocation of the WWTW is a second prime example of avoidable new build.
• reuse of existing buildings should be emphasised (Grafton Centre?)
• a ‘brownfield first’ policy for new building
• halting the use of scarce farm land for solar energy generation
• recognising that not all electricity has the same cost and carbon content. Peak power is much worse the shorter the time period over which it occurs also depending on the time of day and year when it occurs.
Solar installations might be mandated on all industrial buildings, new and existing. The cost, cost sharing and carbon footprint of district heating/cooling needs to be investigated and a comparison made of air source and ground source HPs. It is insufficient, even if convenient, to treat each building in isolation.
The role of the grid to supply part of the demand must be described since this has access to low cost and carbon sources as well as providing resilience.
Does the Plan envisage “smart” demands that avoid short duration peaks in the system?
The role of hot water storage should be described since this avoids use of power in short duration peak periods.

OBJECT because the policy needs further investigation.
The cost and carbon content of reuse should be not be excessive given that c.90% of all water used in buildings could otherwise be treated at a WWTW and then be available to meet minimum environmental minimum flows or other demands downstream.
The reliance on reduced demand must not act as a fig leaf cover for an increase the use of drought orders and restricted supply at times of shortage.

SUPPORT but would like to see additional emphasis given to existing buildings.

BROAD SUPPORT but would like to see additional emphasis given to:
- existing buildings
- role of flood defences and the expectation that some defended flood plains will continue to be effective
- avoidance of sewage flooding risk being transferred from one location to another