Question 16. How should the Local Plan help us achieve 'good growth' that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion?

• Accessible transport is vital for wellbeing and inclusion in our community. • Lack of access to transport (due to affordability, unreliability or the non-existence of transport options) is preventing people from accessing education, work and social opportunities. • Safe, convenient and high-quality cycling infrastructure is fully accessible to people of all ages and abilities. That means more people will be able to cycle, leading to more social inclusion for people who cannot afford to drive or use public transport. • Accessible cycling infrastructure means more children and people with mobility issues will be able to move freely around our region. • Inclusive cycle parking design standards will provide places for people to securely park their larger or adapted cycles. Properly designed cycling infrastructure can also be well-utilised by people on mobility scooters, electric wheelchairs, wheelchairs and other mobility aids. • Some forms of transport can have negative impacts on wellbeing and inclusion. Living near motorways and busy roads reduces well-being. Housing should be designed to be on quiet, local roads with a minimum of motor-traffic. Schools should never be on major roads. • Busy roads are polluted, noisy, and unsafe. They divide communities and trap people in their homes. Planning policies must not allow busy roads to harm communities in the future, and should help fix this problem in existing developments. • Making walking and cycling safer and more accessible will allow children to travel independently from their parents at an earlier age leading to improved emotional resilience. “Bicycling allows the user to explore their spatial surroundings and offers constant opportunity for spontaneous interaction with other users and the surrounding environment.” (te Brömmelstroet, 2017) “Many disabled people use cycles as a mobility aid, and many more would do so if the conditions were appropriate. People may be able to cycle perfectly well, but not stand unaided, cycle on two wheels, lift their cycles, or carry associated cycling gear off the cycle.” (Parkin, 2018) “According to Transport for London (TfL), in London alone 12% of Disabled people cycle regularly or occasionally, compared to 17% of non-Disabled people.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “If we make cycling facilities inclusive of all types of cycles — and ensure transport modes are integrated and made accessible — more disabled people will make the choice of travelling actively.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “Although not all neighbors wish to participate in street communities, streets should be places where communal life is possible and where it can happen if street dwellers want it to.” (Appleyard, 1980) “People living nearer to the new M74 motorway tended to experience poorer mental wellbeing over time than those living further away. We saw a similar pattern in the M8 area, but here it was concentrated among people living with a chronic illness or disability.” (Ogilvie, 2017) “When it comes to the most important major schemes, the reality for some local authorities has been a reluctance to insist on conditions that they think might deter developers who offer economic regeneration. In other cases where planning officials and elected representatives have approved plans for obviously car-dependent development it seems they could not envision what the alternative might look like, or failed to appreciate the accumulated evidence of the collateral damage that a car-dependent society brings in the shape of congestion, environmental degradation and social ill health.” (Taylor, 2011) Evidence for our response to Question 16. • te Brömmelstroet, Marco et al. (2017). Travelling together alone and alone together: mobility and potential exposure to diversity. Applied Mobilities, 2:1, 1-15. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Appleyard, Donald (1980). Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods?. Annals, AAPSS, 451. • Ogilvie D, Foley L, et al (2017). Health impacts of the M74 urban motorway extension: a mixedmethod natural experimental study. Public Health Res; 5: 3. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning.

Accessible cycling infrastructure means more children and people with mobility issues will be able to freely move around our region. Inclusive cycle parking design standards will provide places for people to securely park their larger or adapted cycles. Properly designed cycling infrastructure can also be well-utilised by people on mobility scooters, electric wheelchairs, wheelchairs and other mobility aids. Some forms of transport can have negative impacts on wellbeing and inclusion. Living near motorways and busy roads reduces well-being. Housing should be designed to be on quiet, local roads with the minimal amount of motor-traffic. Busy roads are polluted, noisy, and unsafe. They divide communities and trap people in their homes. Planning policies must not allow busy roads to harm communities in the future, and help fix this problem in existing developments.

I have been a member of the skateboard community in cambridge for 20 years, one thing the community lacks is more open spaces for us to thrive as well as an indoor provision for the cold winters when skateboarding cannot be done outdoors. The lack of facilities espcailly an indoor space has left the community feeling isolated resulting in a total lack of social incluson. We have not been catered for with indoor facilities the same way any other sport would be, cambridge needs provide more for a sport which is massively growing and has just this year become an olympic sport.

Good growth requires a suitable transport network. If we are going to maintain the area as a pleasant place to live, we cannot have an increase in car traffic. To achieve this high quality cycling infrastructure and good public transport links are required. New developments should be designed to minimise car ownership, with the assumptions being that households will not have and should not expect to be able to have private cars.

The skateboard community has recently been in talks with the council and we are at pivotal time in which we are desperately in need of an indoor facility as well as more open spaces. A lack of communication when building previous skateparks has led to these current sapces being unused, with our input into planning and design future projects could become spaces for good growth to occur as a pose to current obsolete spaces. This change could transfrom a community which is feeling isolated into one whcih impoves our physcial and mental wellbeing and encourags social cohesion for the community as a whole. More provisions for skateboarding will lift the community and give us the facilities we need to grow.

Prioritise buses and bicycles. Promote self build and co-housing rather than developer led construction to promote community building. Any urban extension should include more of the large green spaces of the scale of Parkers Piece, Lammas Land, Jesus Green that allow communal recreation. Promote better walking and cycling links to the few accessible green spaces we have – in particular the Wicken Fen 100 Year Vision. New developments in Cherry Hinton area to help fund opening of the chalk pit lakes to the public

Amenities should scale with the local community. Lack of local accessible community focused amenities can lead to isolation of communities and ghettoisation. Scaling of high quality transport links and walking access, which does not rely on private motor vehicle access is crucial to a 'good growth' plan.

By moving the growth away from Cambridge! We are already unsustainable in water. Take the growth to Peterborough, and work towards a sustainable Cambridge, with a locally sustainable population and sustainable river and wildlife.

Indoor and outdoor skateboarding facilities, there are no spaces to skate in the winter and therefore discourages social inclusion for many

WELLBEING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION How should the Local Plan help us achieve ‘good growth’ that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion? Where is the ‘No Growth Option? Good growth is not currently happening in Greater Cambridge and certainly not in the City. Planning laws appear to allow developers to maximise their profits with no social conscious, wriggling out of the 40% social/affordable housing obligation under the ‘viability’ header. Why do Councillors shake their heads then vote the planning application through? Are you constantly reassessing the impact on the wellbeing of existing residents before you allow more development? I very much question the prediction of Growth that you think we need. Where is the evidence? Present communities are feeling overwhelmed with the shear quantity of development which appears to have nothing to offer local families. A ‘good’ growth would be mixed and affordable housing for both private and social housing, families, singles, young and old, majority of which is for long term residents, so long term rental or home owning. Short term rentals and 'businesses' (wrongly) now running Air BnB do not promote wellbeing and social inclusion. We need Low Rise housing (maximum 3 storey in line with Cambridge’s ‘norm’) with plenty of open green space for integration, recreation and play with good Community spaces: play/sports areas, trees, ponds, community centres open for a variety of activities and clubs day and evening where residents can interact with their neighbours. We need open, spacious and well-lit areas at night so residents feel safe anytime day or night. Places that are well maintained which residents and visitors can be respectful and have a sense of investment and belonging. DO NOT ALLOW high rise buildings (luxury apartments or social housing) which promotes isolation and divides communities – look at the research and impact on people which led to the 60s high rise flats being pulled down. Think of those residents already living nearby. Eg Current plans for The Meadows in North Cambridge – potential loss of green space and enclosure from shadows of 6 storey buildings leading to isolation and depressing. Good plans will include good infrastructure which is easily accessible by walking or cycling and nearby public transport to reach facilities or work further away. Infrastructure needs to be in place before home are lived in and before residents get used to using a private car out of necessity.

This is a very important issue. The important principle is that anything other than "good growth" reduces the welfare of residents and should not be pursued. Good growth is not a "nice to have", it is the core driver of our objectives. The Local Plan issues and Options paper has not understood two key dimensions of wellbeing and social inclusion and these need to be directly addressed. These relate to issues of socio-economic exclusion. Firstly, access to educational opportunities particularly at Sixth From level in the Greater Cambridge area.. Lack of access to economic and effective public transportation is having a very direct impact on educational choices made by our young people living in villages outside Cambridge (e.g., Cambourne, Cottenham - two of the largest South Cambs communities). This is not acceptable and negatively impacts social mobility as it denies young people the opportunity to study at Hills Road/Long Road.. A similar problem exists with respect to access to health services at the regional centre at Addenbrookes. These barriers must be considered when identifying sites for new developments where there is likely to be young people or older residents. These factors should be considered otherwise we are creating issues of social and economic exclusion .

There are numerous matters relevant here which are all reflected in the adopted Local Plan: • Inclusion of affordable housing; • Include low cost starter homes in new larger developments; • Proximity of housing to nearby employment (i.e. Ickleton which is adjacent to Wellcome Genome Campus and numerous employment opportunities at Duxford); • Proximity of housing to non-car means of transport; • New tree planting or biodiversity enhancements; • Quality of place-making; • Car-sharing and communal transport arrangements; • Enhanced public transport generally; • Technology to allow home and flexible working; and • Large developments to include new allotments, community woodlands/orchards etc. Additionally, given national changing demographics, greater attention in policy terms should be given to the housing needs of the elderly. Sheltered housing and care home providers currently have to compete with mainstream housebuilders for land which can be problematic. If this sector is to grow, then planning policy needs to encourage more specialist forms of housing either through site allocations or as an element of large schemes.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association argues that too much development has a negative/counterproductive impact on well being and social inclusion. The approach that has been adopted in the Southern Fringe of developments which mix market and affordable homes has been successful as a design concept but more effort is needed by residents and Councils to break down barriers and involve everyone in the community. There should have been a much longer-term support programme funded by developers and coordinated by Councils, to help everyone integrate. There is also a need for more intermediate housing and provision for key workers and older people.

• The concept of ‘good growth’ is a misnomer. First it must be decided what that growth entails, the effect on the existing natural and built environment, and the ability of the necessary infrastructure to support it. Growth cannot be ‘good’ unless it is also sustainable and balanced. Any growth will inevitably have negative connotations and, in Greater Cambridge, those are most likely to outweigh any perceived ‘benefits’. • Further growth in Greater Cambridge, over and above the more than 35,000 new homes (and associated employment developments) already allowed for in the 2018 Local Plan, should be curtailed until the impact of these developments can be seen and properly assessed. In the light of recent research and observations which clearly show the climate emergency to be gathering pace (this includes loss of species, loss of insects, and the depletion of water resources locally), there is even a case to be made for the new Local Plan to reduce the present planned growth.

Mixed developments with key worker and affordable housing that have excellent access to public transport Mixed developments to include lifetime housing so that people can stay in their communities as they go through life changes Better public transport connectivity and public transport to be the cheaper option for travel Green spaces to include exercise areas for all ages e.g. playgrounds for all ages Better facilities for people with disabilities so they can be included in all developments Communal work spaces for distance working to prevent isolation for homeworkers

It is considered that meeting housing and affordable housing needs is part of the well-being and social inclusion theme because housing falls within the social objective of sustainable development (as set out in Paragraph 8 of the NPPF). There are substantial affordability issues in Greater Cambridge associated with the high cost of buying and renting housing, and those that cannot afford to live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire close to employment opportunities having to endure longer commuting. Paragraph 8 and Chapter 8 of the NPPF identifies the other factors that relate to the wellbeing and social inclusion theme, which are about creating well-designed and safe developments, providing access to services and facilities, and providing open space. It is suggested that to achieve ‘good growth’ the emerging GCLP will need to allocate suitable sites that deliver housing and affordable housing, are accessible to services and facilities, include open space and recreation facilities. Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard would provide additional housing and affordable housing for Papworth Everard. There are limited opportunities for infill development within the existing Development Framework boundary of the village. The proposed development would include significant areas of public open space, green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. The protected trees within the site would be retained and significant new woodland planting would take place. This approach to the proposed development would ensure that the proposals created an environment that would have a positive impact on the well-being of future residents and existing residents of the village utilising the new facilities that the proposed development would provide. The proposals would deliver the benefits that were associated with the previous proposal for the site including: reserving land for a pre-school facility; contributions towards primary and secondary school provision; library contribution; contribution for improvements to Papworth Surgery; enhancements to off-site public footpaths; enhancements to bus services to deliver an additional service in the peak hour; contributions towards cycle and pedestrian links between Papworth Everard and Cambourne. All of these contributions would assist in meeting the Council’s aim of achieving achieve ‘good growth’ that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion. The proposed development would also support existing services and facilities in Papworth Everard. Papworth Everard is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in South Cambridgeshire District Council's current settlement hierarchy and therefore sits towards the top of the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Papworth Everard contains an extensive range of services and facilities including a convenience store, hairdressers, fish and chip shop, coffee shop and a restaurant, a primary school, children’s nurseries, post office, library, doctor’s surgery/health centre, veterinary surgery, churches and village hall. Development has also commenced to deliver a bakery, microbrewery and Public House on the former print works site, south of Church Lane. Papworth Hospital was previously the main employer in the village although the facilities and functions of the hospital have now been relocated. The former hospital site is however positively promoted within the adopted plan for future employment generating uses and is being actively marketed currently. Papworth Business Park, located at the southern edge of the village, is the main employment area. The extensive range of services, facilities and employment opportunities which exist within Papworth Everard are all reflective of its designation as a Minor Rural Centre. Where people do need to travel out of the village, access to an established bus service which provides connections from the village to Cambourne, St Neots, Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives. The main bus route is provided by the X3 bus. While this service currently provides an hourly service, there are gaps in the timetable during the AM and PM peak hour. As a result, it is very difficult for residents of Papworth to utilise this as a commuter service. It was therefore agreed with the operator during the consideration of the previous applications on the site that the development would deliver enhancements to the service to provide additional services in the AM and PM peak hours. Such an improvement will significantly boost the attractiveness of the service for existing and future residents. In addition to the above, Cambridgeshire County Council are seeking to deliver a cycle and pedestrian link from Papworth to Cambourne. It is the County Council’s intention to deliver a 2m wide cycle path along the eastern side of the A1198 to provide a link between the existing cycle path located north of the A1198/A428 junction, and the existing footpath network at the southern point of Papworth. The County’s programme for delivering this connection are not known at this time, it was however agreed that the previous applications would contribute towards the delivery of this link. When delivered, it will provide a direct cycle link to Cambourne and all of the facilities provided within it. In January 2020 the preferred route options for East West Rail was announced and it was confirmed that this would link existing stations in Bedford and Cambridge with communities in Cambourne, just to the south of Papworth Everard. East West rail plans to connect communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, creating new opportunities and improving quality of life for people across the area by: • Making it cheaper and quicker to get around the area – connecting people to their jobs, homes and families, as well as businesses to their employees, suppliers and customers. • Supporting new housing to make it more affordable – so people can afford to live and work in the area, and businesses can afford to create more jobs and increase productivity. It is proposed that services would run all the way from Oxford to Cambridge before the end of the decade. At the moment it is estimated that the current journey times by public transport could be reduced to: • Around 35 minutes between Bedford and Cambridge, a reduction of 40 minutes compared to the existing bus link. • Around 90 minutes between Oxford and Cambridge, a reduction of around 60 minutes compared to existing rail connections via London. East West rail will clearly bring significant benefits to Greater Cambridgeshire. Whilst the exact location of the proposed station at Cambourne is yet to be confirmed, given Papworth Everard’s proximity to Cambourne and the existing and proposed links that there are between Papworth Everard and Cambourne; the village is in a prime location to sustainably accommodate new development where resident will have a genuine choice of sustainable travel modes to access employment, facilities and services. In addition to East West Rail, Highways England announced their preferred route for the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvements in February 2019. Following this (June and July 2019) consultation took place on their developed route option. These improvements will result in significant benefits including: • Safety: Improve safety at junctions, side roads and private accesses by reducing traffic flows on the existing A428. • Connectivity: The improvements will cut journey times by more than a third at peak times between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet junctions. • Economic growth: Enable growth in jobs and housing and improve connections between people and jobs. • Community: Improve the safety of horse riders, cyclist, walkers and connecting communities. Highways England remain committed to the new road opening in 2025/26. As Caxton Gibbet is located just to the south of Papworth Everard, these proposed improvements will significantly improve accessibility to and from the village, particularly when accessing employment, services and facilities to the west. It is clear from the proposed infrastructure projects described above that Papworth Everard is in a prime location to benefit from these schemes which will improve transport choice and reduce journey times. Papworth Everard, an already sustainable settlement, is therefore in a location within Greater Cambridge that will become increasingly sustainable over the Plan period and should be a key focus for growth in order to ensure that the benefits of these infrastructure projects are fully exploited by the emerging GCLP. The site is, therefore, clearly accessible to a range of services, facilities and employment opportunities providing a positive platform to encourage social inclusion for all.

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by St John’s College, Cambridge to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The College is a significant landowner in and around Cambridge and accordingly needs to make the necessary representations to the Councils in respect of its assets and on other relevant planning policy issues that will arise in the context of any new development plan for the two administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. The Colleges have a duty of care to support the wellbeing and social inclusion of their members and retaining the sense of being part of a College community is core to the Cambridge University experience. Local Plan policy needs to be favourable towards development of the facilities to enable these non-academic elements of university life as well as Faculty and accommodation buildings. Social, dining and sports facilities play an important part in maintaining the health and wellbeing of the modern student. Adaptation of heritage aspects on more historic sites to enable the evolution and changes in facilities demanded by the current and future College populations will be a key element in maintaining this critically important element of the University offer.

Truly affordable housing, i.e. social housing is vital. The current definition of affordable housing does not deliver enough housing that people on modest incomes can afford. Services, including cultural facilities, have been disappearing over the last decade or so, and it is far from clear how the Local Plan could reinstate what has gone, let alone add to them.

You must NEVER ever have growth as an aim. Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. Growth does not lead to inclusive wellbeing. Places around the world that have experienced growth have absolutely terrible mental health and also poor physical health related to obesity, etc. If wellbeing is the aim, then simply aim to maximise that. Aiming for growth, in the vague hope that growth might lead to wellbeing (it won't), is totally idiotic. When our endless pursuit of growth destroys our natural life support, we will have no wellbeing at all.

New developments to continue to have a mix of tenure - v good in Camb city so far...but much much better on providing spaces for a range of local amenities and shops int hese developments to provide spaces for local cohesion and less social isolaion. Need to make sure this is true outside the city too. Ensure new developments connected by public transport More innovative, challegning and learning-based playgrounds - possibly financially supported by local businesses. Berlin has given me an idea of what playgrounds can look like - both food for the imagination and opportunities to learn about the nature-based physics of the world through water and sand play. No more swingsets and slides. A quick google can show you some images and here is an Americans take, which also resonates with thisBrit's experience of Uk playgrounds, including those in Cambridge: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/travel/berlin-family-holidays.html Spaces for social enterprise would ensure that we can support local people outside the hi-tech and knowledge economies without forcing into corporate service roles. For example - designated spaces for worker run cafe, rather than yet another pret etc One thing Cambridge misses - and it is extraordinary considering where we are - is cheap, fresh local veg. Market stalls now are expensive. Supermarkets are cheapest - but not local and full of plastic and not supplying good high quality jobs. Attached a photo from a workers coop in Manchester with fresh local (and organic) veg at under supermarket prices. Can we not have that here too?

Allocating sites for housing development in locations in Cambridge that offer relatively high land value capture will help to achieve greater levels of developer funding for wellbeing and social inclusion measures, including affordable housing.

From the Trust's perspective we would strongly encourage that the plan for Greater Cambridge is supportive of community and cultural facilities, including the area's theatres, music venues and pubs which provide access to the arts and culture. This includes ensuring such facilities are protected from loss, for example setting robust evidence criteria where applications for change of use are received. This will help the future plan accord with paragraph 92 of the NPPF. Furthermore, in conjunction with policies on appropriate uses within town centres, the plan should also manage development which would result in conflict with existing noise-generating uses in line with paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Access to employment and homes are significant factors in terms of healthy communities and tackling social exclusion is providing people with access to decent housing. The local plan should support the economic growth and facilitate the delivery of homes needed to support that economy. The plan should recognise that a wide variety of types and tenures are required and be more open to tenures which support and facilitate home ownership

Policies and proposals should seek to promote mixed use areas and take into account the existing market and travel patterns including linkages to employment hubs in the surrounding area. Understanding the existing services and facilities in the area and the impact that new development may have on facilities in the surrounding districts will maximise efficient use of resources. Wellbeing and social inclusion will be promoted by providing a range of employment opportunities and working collaboratively with adjoining local authorities to maximise opportunities for less advantaged communities outside Greater Cambridge to access diverse high quality employment. Providing a range of housing typologies and understanding need (including affordable, adaptable homes and older people’s housing) will be essential for wellbeing and social inclusion. Where developments are close to the boundary of Greater Cambridge careful consideration should also be given to the scale and nature of housing and employment need from adjoining local authorities.

I cannot find out how this consultation works without spending a day reading through it. 1. We were only informed about it at a meeting in the Corn Echchange 4 days before consultaion closed. 2. Only developers with full time staff or professional charities will be be able to respond - few individuals who have to go to work

no ghetto-isation of affordable vs conventional housing developments. Design for a mix of age occupants/life situations. Incorporate social centres from the start (i.e. ensure developers deliver shops, social facilities from the start, not at end). minimise 'gated' developments. Ensure developments contribute to wider social development for whole area. Prohibit 'private roads' and development only facilities (e.g. play parks), so the wider community and new community integrate. MORE COUNCIL HOUSING in all developments. All developments (inc. small developments) should contribute to ensure medical and social care facilities are 'topped up' with additional burden of new developments. All new developments should ensure MANY links for sustainable transport within/through site, including consideration of proximity to local sustainable transport links (busses etc).

Keep polluting cars etc to outside of developments. Encourage walking, cycling within built up regions

• Accessible transport is vital for wellbeing and inclusion in our community. • Lack of access to transport (due to affordability, unreliability or the non-existence of transport options) is preventing people from accessing education, work and social opportunities. • Safe, convenient and high-quality cycling infrastructure is fully accessible to people of all ages and abilities. That means more people will be able to cycle, leading to more social inclusion for people who cannot afford to drive or use public transport. • Accessible cycling infrastructure means more children and people with mobility issues will be able to freely move around our region. • Inclusive cycle parking design standards will provide places for people to securely park their larger or adapted cycles. Properly designed cycling infrastructure can also be well-utilised by people on mobility scooters, electric wheelchairs, wheelchairs and other mobility aids. • Some forms of transport can have negative impacts on wellbeing and inclusion. Living near motorways and busy roads reduces well-being. Housing should be designed to be on quiet, local roads with the minimal amount of motor-traffic. Schools should never be on major roads. • Busy roads are polluted, noisy, and unsafe. They divide communities and trap people in their homes. Planning policies must not allow busy roads to harm communities in the future, and help fix this problem in existing developments. • Making walking and cycling safer and more accessible will allow children to travel independently from their parents at an earlier age leading to improved emotional resilience.

Grosvenor is committed to bringing forward developments which reflect the principles of social sustainability, good growth and wellbeing amongst local residents. ‘Good growth’ can be achieved through creating compact development sites with highly sustainable accessibility and opportunities for on site community initiatives. The provision of a range of homes for all parts of the community, including affordable and specialist housing. Easy access to local services and amenities creates inclusiveness, which helps to foster wellbeing. Encouraging travel by sustainable modes of transport, including walking, cycling, public transport and electric vehicles, which would also encourage active lifestyles and reduce carbon emissions, leading to positive effects on health. As mentioned throughout these representations, Trumpington South will develop a sense of identity, promote healthy lifestyles and active public spaces and provide the right community infastructure to promote well being and social inclusion. Techcnial assessments in relation to noise and air quality have been prepared by BuroHappold in support of these representations, to demonstrate that the proposed development at Trumpington South is suitable and deliverable in relation to noise and air quality. Noise and air quality considerations are intrinsically linked to the well-being and health of existing and future residents and will be considered in greater detail as the design process for this proposal evolves. The M11 is associated with poorer levels of air quality and higher levels of noise. The Noise Feasibility Study prepared by Buro Happold confirms that the masterplan for Trumpington South proposes residential properties approximately 200m away from this source. The Study demonstrates that target internal and external ambient noise levels can be achieved, when considering the proposed masterplan and the existing consented bund, along the southern site boundary adjacent to the M11. The study also demonstrates that incorporating future massing and design considerations (i.e. glazing treatments) can provide further mitigation. The Air Quality Assessment, also prepared by Buro Happold, concludes that the air quality impacts associated with emissions from surrounding roads on future site occupants will not be significant, and similarly provides a range of further mitigation measures, some of which are already demonstrated in the proposals for Trumpington South. The masterplan also seeks to discourage private cars and encourage active transport (walking and cycling) and public transport, with the implementation of car-free zones, Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure and centralised parking locations. The proposed masterplan also incorporates other elements that will have a positive impact on air quality and noise, including zero-carbon homes in operation and extensive tree planting across the site.

In order to create spaces that benefit the health and wellbeing of people while encouraging social cohesion, spaces should be provided. The plan should provide indoor and outdoor facilities and a range of community venues that accommodate arts, culture and religion, sports, skating and other activities. The plan should look to existing successful facilities such as Eddington – Storey’s Field Centre.