Question 5. Do you think we have identified the right cross-boundary issues and initiatives that affect ourselves and neighbouring areas?
A lot of the surrounding authorities do not give enough support for disabled people, these areas must be encouraged to meet Cambridge's standards.
No uploaded files for public display
Propose a more robust approach to achieving a 'carbon-nautral Cambridge' than 'carbon offsetting', which must be expected to impact much more forcefully on growth aspirations
No uploaded files for public display
The need to create connected access to NHS services, e.g. where will new go surgeries need to be built to ensure access?
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns and the need for housing to be located in close proximity.
No uploaded files for public display
The growth in jobs planned for the area would imply a 55% increase in housing to support this. Water, transport to name just two issues make this unsustainable. The premiss of growth that is being put forward needs to be challenged. Already, too much water is being taken from the aquifers supplying Cambridge. There should be no further growth until a realistic plan to resolve the water issues is implemented.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
We note that no mention is given to the continued growth of Haverhill and approval for warehousing and logistics facilities that would be banned under the SCDC 2018 Local Plan Polcy E/11. The Greater Cambridge local plan should seek to provide more sustainable transport options for those travelling from Haverhill and not support businesses that generate disproportionate amounts of HGV traffic.
No uploaded files for public display
Need to ensure that signed statements of cooperation are agreed with neighbouring local authorities prior to the submission of the Local Plan. There is also a need for the Greater Cambridge Plan to take into account the development aspirations of adjoining authorities and the timescales for the review and preparation of their Local Plans.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
You should also be working with East Hertfordshire district council as this area includes Bishops Stortford and Bishop's Stortford is within the commuting catchment area for Cambridge and will be even more so when the Cambridge South station is built.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment and residential locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment and residential locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The identified cross-boundary issues are relevant. However, it is requested that employment matters are included as cross-boundary issues to be discussed with neighbouring authorities (in Section 3.6.5). Employment matters are identified as a strategic matter in Paragraph 20 of the NPPF and which should be subject to the duty to cooperate (DtC) (see Paragraph 24). Considerable work has been undertaken to address the potential for sustainable economic growth in the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford Arc in ‘Partnering for Prosperity’ and the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) and the Local Industrial Strategy LIS). The statutory plan-making process must properly address the aspirations for economic development that are set out in the LIS as informed by CPIER with key stakeholders and DtC partners if the emerging GCLP is to be found sound.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns, particularly in rural villages such as Balsham.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment and residential locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment and residential locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Pigeon generally agrees with the cross boundary issues identified. However, under the transport heading, and having regard for the importance of the prospective east-west rail and expressway initiatives across the Oxford to Cambridge Arc we would have expected nearby authorities at Bedford and Milton Keynes to be included on collaboration on strategic cross-boundary issues, rather than limiting the process to the administrative boundary of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In addition, and with this partly in mind, the cross-boundary issues should also include employment needs given the need for liaison with neighbouring authorities within the various economic corridors and the Cambridge Travel to Work area itself.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. The identified cross-boundary issues are highly relevant. However, it is requested that employment matters are included as cross-boundary issue to be discussed with neighbouring authorities (in Section 3.6.5). Employment matters are identified as a strategic matter in Paragraph 20 of the NPPF, and should be subject to the duty to cooperate (see Paragraph 24). The reason why employment matters are particularly relevant is that Cambridge and its immediate surroundings are a focus for employment development which has an impact on commuting patterns, but because of limited supply compared to demand, high housing costs (buying and renting) in the City and affordability issues generally it is difficult for residents in neighbouring areas to live closer to where they work.
No uploaded files for public display
Regional Development. The text and diagrams only consider three economic corridors plus Peterborough. What about other towns and cities in our region? The pressure for growth in Cambridge is overwhelming. We need to consider co-operation with other less pressurised areas to assist their economic development and relieve pressure here.
No uploaded files for public display
I do, however, I don't think some issues, such as the overwhelming lack of reliable, good value, green public transport are being taken seriously enough to provide adequately for the population that is already living and working in Cambridge and the Greater Cambridge area. I have no confidence in the government or the local authorities to improve this so I am very much against the development of the area for additional housing and businesses. The current infrastructure seems unable to cope with the number of people in the area at the moment so I don't see how increasing this is going to improve things.
No uploaded files for public display
I would like to highlight a boundary issue that went wrong in my opinion as a result of disparities in previous plans. The Orchard Park development lies in South Cambridgeshire despite effectively being an urban extension to Cambridge City cf. Clay Farm and Trumpington Meadows. Orchard Park was denied the benefit of the city’s enlightened policy of new allotment provision in its urban extensions, because South Cambridgeshire’s plan omitted that requirement. We now have a new city residential area which is deficient in allotment provision. So my point is that any developments near Greater Cambridge should take a shared view of allotment provision (within say 3 miles) so that new residents outside our plan area do not dilute existing or new provision within our plan area. And vice versa. Do not rely on regulation to exclude “outsiders” from Greater Cambridge allotments: people should be allowed to use whichever site is most convenient for them regardless of administrative boundaries.
No uploaded files for public display