Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

This is vital. The historic environment, and its capacity (or not) to withstand existing growth (let alone new growth proposed) should have been considered at the start of the Great Places chapter.
Understand what you have, then consider its capacity for change.
The proposals fail to consider anything other than designated heritage assets. There is no consideration
of the heritage significance of Cambridge as a whole, or of the heritage significance of undesignated buildings and spaces –notably Cambridge’s market, which pre-dates the University, and Grantchester meadows.
The Local Plan should clarify the role and the heritage of the market square as a historic centre of the city.
We would have more faith in the Heritage Impact Assessment if there was more evidence of knowledge
of Cambridge, and of issues, policies, and initiatives relating to its historic environment. We deem it unfit
for purpose. There is no mention of any Conservation Area appraisal apart from the Historic Core, and
no cumulative assessment of significance and issues identified in these Appraisals.

This policy is basically very good - but should relate to all buildings of traditional construction, and needs some updating. Please refer to our response to CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings.

There are other types of community asset in danger, community centres, youth centres, museums, cafes, faith centres. The focus on public houses doesn’t reflect the diversity of the city.

We have commented on the overall number of new jobs under the policy S/JH. See also our comments
under Wellbeing and Inclusion.
We have not given detailed comments on all of the following sections. Our overarching concern is that this
Local Plan must effectively tackle poverty and inequality in Greater Cambridgeshire. Previous approaches
have failed to do this. Much is made of the long term sustained growth of the Greater Cambridgeshire
economy but this prosperity is not felt by all. Use of foodbanks in Cambridge is up by 127% since 2015 [1].
Walking through Cambridge city centre you see vacant shops, a lack of small independent businesses, and
people in various conditions of distress, including begging and rough sleeping. Further growth in the muchvaunted
‘high technology cluster’ will not address these problems, but risks inflating the ‘Cambridge bubble’
yet further and putting a decent standard of living even further out of reach for a majority of people (see also
our response to ‘Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments’). Unemployment is not necessarily a helpful
metric when we have people holding down multiple jobs but still having to choose between heating and
eating.
[1] https://cambridgecity.foodbank.org.uk/2021/05/04/foodbank-use-in-cambridge-up-127-since-2015/

We broadly support this policy.
We suggest that there are potential conflicts between this policy and CC/CS which need to be explored. A large part of Greater Cambridge’s carbon emissions comes from ‘wasted peat’. To protect the remaining carbon stock in our peatlands and restore them to a net carbon sink, significant land management changes will be necessary including allowing some rewetting of the peat soils. This will entail loss of agricultural yields (which must however be set against the total collapse of food production in the worst climate scenarios).
We seek reassurance that this policy would not prevent habitat restoration projects on drained peat soils currently under agricultural use.

We broadly support the aims of this policy but it must be based on a rigorous assessment of need. Demand for local employment hubs may currently be low due to the risk posed by COVID and it is not clear how this will develop in the future. Similarly, residential extensions should be tested against proof of need. This could be a very easy loophole to start building loft extensions and garden studios with no intention of working in them.
Clearly further exploration is needed of the funding model for employment hubs. Operators must not be permitted to charge excessive prices for use of these facilities, especially in areas where there are few alternatives for remote workers. The possibility of publicly funded hubs, for example based in libraries, should be explored.

We support the aims of this policy. We are concerned that it will have the same problem as so-called “affordable” housing, i.e. that 80% of the market rate in Cambridge is still out of the reach of most (see our comments under housing). Ideally, the rate which is considered ‘affordable’ should be set through assessment of the ability of the target market to pay these rates.

We broadly support this policy and would additionally request a range of green spaces in employment parks.
Employees need nature for wellbeing, space to walk, and somewhere to eat a packed lunch if they decide not to purchase food on-site. Cambridge Science Park provides a reasonably good model - there is a duck pond and some grass, a richer habitat would attract more wildlife, leading to greater wellbeing.

We support an update of the polices on retail and leisure. COVID has accelerated changes that were already happening. In Cambridge, as in other places across the country, shops are closing, leaving empty space. We hope that the policies on “retail and centres” will take account of this. There are clear links to other policies, such as housing, jobs and great places (but not limited to these) so our centres are not full of empty, under-used, buildings.
We welcome the intention to ‘establish a hierarchy of centres across Greater Cambridge’. As regards Cambridge itself, ‘encouraging small-scale units’ may not be sufficient to attract the range of users mentioned. The 2009 ‘Clone Town’ report from the New Economics Foundation highlighted a number of reasons for Cambridge’s lack of diversity as a shopping centre. These included the very high rents charged by landlords (mostly the Colleges, with this situation tied into the university’s own funding challenges); the frequent traffic gridlocks and the fact the Park and Ride services funnel shoppers into a few central locations.

See also our comments under S/JH regarding overall numbers of homes to be built and under Wellbeing and
Inclusion regarding affordability.
We would like to see the direct evidence for housing need in Greater Cambridge (broken down by different
sizes and types of home), not just the use of average house prices as a proxy. It is well-known that people
struggle to afford homes in our area (particularly in Cambridge), and there is often an unchallenged
assumption that this is due to an undersupply of housing, which is best addressed by building more. What
research has been carried out into what actually drives high house prices in Cambridge, and what evidence
is there that building more houses will address this? The situation we are currently in, with house prices
soaring and many people unable to afford to live near where they work, has arisen despite significant house
building programmes: we question whether a policy of more of the same is likely to help.