Question 17. How do you think our plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals?

Use local artists to implement s106 projects. This will create local jobs and the artists will be locally accountable for their work. I think local artists will produce more relevant work. In the southern fringe £1000s was wasted on a proposed metal tree and even more on an over-ambitious distributed apple orchard - most of which has still not been planted and some of the planted trees are not looked after and a few have already been ripped out by development (at Anstey Way). It is crazy to award grants to overseas artists who can disappear when their project fails. Do not let developers corrupt the intent of the local plan and the expert guidance of local people. This happened at Clay Farm where developers Countryside Properties convinced planners that a community garden should replace part of the required allotment provision. We told the Planning Committee that this was a mistake. A community garden can really only come from the community which of course did not exist when this project was implemented, whereas allotments have a clearly-defined purpose. What should have been created was conventional allotment provision within which a community garden can be created later, as has happened at several older Cambridge allotment sites.

Gone far enough in most places. A. Fifteen years ago the late 19th & early 20th century pattern of terraced houses with gardens was considered 'dense', and most residents were prepared to see more of the same to allow proximity to shops, schools, fewer car journeys. But this has opened the flood gates as far a developers are concerned. Now: 1. Houses go higher with very ugly loft conversions dominating the skyline and overlooking neighbouring gardens (better to raise the roof slightly than have box dormers?). 2. Any garden that is acessible is seen by developers as a new building site (see: 39 Thoday St. The agents, W Neale, said 'Policy 3/12 of the Local Plan is addressed in delivering attainable small independent housing units which will be very attractive to live in’ and they 'believe, the proposed scheme will provide significant improvements to the area, as well as achieving a high standard of living accommodation’. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3091532/The-bed-shed-owner-calls-studio-flat-angry-neighbours-call-garage-shipping-container-top.html • It is difficult to believe that anyone agrees it will be ‘attractive to live in’ or provide a high standard of living accomodation’ – one room up a narrow staircase above a wheelie bin store, and below even the low minimal space standards recommended by the city Council in the Local Plan. • It certainly fails to ‘provide significant improvements to the area’. Instead it crowds out the street, which had been a green lung in an area that feels very dense, with front doors opening straight on to the pavement. Gardens are important for private open space - for children to play, to eat outside in summer, to sit in alone or with family to feel the sun, see the sky, watch the birds as you get older. Easy for the young and fit who may be at work all day to scoff at this but for children or as you get older this matters - the garden in a terrace is often the biggest space in the house - See: Monteal Square, where developer can only reach the housing targets it has been set by densification and demolishing existing homes. If the garden is long and thin and neighbours noisey at one end you can move to the other end. If gardens are small or courtyards as in many new houses it only takes one Trampoline to destroy to peace in all adjoining gardens. B. Where does densification stop? Everyone cannot live in Cambridge, and there will always be demand. At present building small units is very profitable, and in many areas there are few new family homes. Private and social family homes are needed to retain balenced, stable communities. But new homes should be in nearby towns, or on the edge of Cambridge in less attractive green belt land, with the green belt extended to compensate and with green lungs near the city.

Grosvenor supports the approach taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. Previous precedents showcase the commitment Grosvenor have made to engage the local community. For example, Grosvenor engaged the public from very early stages during the development of Trumpington Meadows through a range of methods, and their commitment is reflected through it being an award-winning development. Today, the scheme mirrors principles of good design and high quality place-making and this would be extended to Trumpington South.

Needs more thought.

Please see Camcycle's response. It is too hard for people to engage with the planning system in its current form. This Local Plan consultation is an example of people finding it too difficult to respond. Local groups like Camcycle do an excellent job of 'translating' planning to the public and responding with good ideas to improve our developments. Outoftowndevelopers,concernedwithprofitaboveallelse,frequentlyunderestimatetheneeds of people who cycling, the number of people who will cycle and the extent of provision of cycling facilities. Ensuringlocalpeoplecancontributetotheseconsultationsandtakingthecontributionsoforganisations like Camcycle seriously can prevent the issues that arise from underprovision. Stronger planning policies developed with extensive community consultation will also help with these issues.

Learn from Marmalade Lane. It’s beautiful, it’s sustainable, it’s community designed. This kind of self build should be much more common than it is, and would mean that people got the kind of houses they want to live in. Obviously any development must have walking and cycling infrastructure as well as community facilities in place before anyone moves in.

Encouraging Neighborhood Plans. See 2 above: For communities to get behind this element of strategy it would also be necessary to given them confidence in the short term development and long tem management of such sites. The principal means of doing this should be by truly local entities – Community Land Trusts . The local plan should recognize and give some encourage and protection to ,CLTs in order that these nascent organisations can stand a fair chance of achieving anything, against non local providers.

A new approach to Rural Exception Sites is needed, especially in the Green Belt is needed in many communities.

There needs to be engagement with local communities (parish councils in SCDC) from the pre-application stage. Only in this way can communities have a real input into design and density. At present, communities are only consulted after an application has been submitted, by which point substantial agreement has already been reached between planning officers and developers and only minor modifications are accepted. Planners should respect differences between urban and village sites and not impose urban densities and layouts which are out of character with existing developments and contrary to adopted policies. Adopted design guides should be enforced and Planning Commttees not placed in the position of having to approve mediocre developments which just meet minimum standards Engagement with communities should start at the pre-application stage.

Make consultations more accessible and user friendly. Approach groups, community leaders etc to gain input rather than wait for input.

By ensuring that communities concerns and ideas are listened to.

Too much new house building is entirely delivered by large, volume, national housebuilders, with no input from the residents that will live there, or the Cambridge context. Planning policies should encourage more self-built housing, and smaller more distinctive developments. Where consultations are held, they should be listened to, instead of holding them and then just doing whatever the developer wanted to do anyway.

All planning applications should be required to demonstrate how the community has been consulted, and what changes have been made as a result, before they will be considered. Currently all too often not even the people living next door are even informed — let alone consulted — about plans before they become live Planning Applications. This makes a farce any idea of enabling communities to ‘shape’ new proposals.

By actively involving them within the process but by being realistic from the outset that new housing growth is required across the District.

Help communities develop community building projects. Provide the expertise communities need which big developers already have for example how do you create a zero carbon development? Share knowledge and provide more leadership and knowledge through building control. Could you potentially in a big new build space like Northstowe make it a requirement that a certain percentage of the development is built by community building projects and make it a condition for the big developers to get their planning through that they support the community building projects thereby creating diversity and sharing knowledge. The big developers would be incentivised to help the community projects as it would speed the whole project through. You’d have to make sure community schemes weren’t manipulated by big developers.

USS support the Council’s approach to engaging with stakeholders and the local community to shape development proposals. USS has demonstrated its commitment to engaging with the local community and key stakeholders throughout the preparation of the adopted Cambridge City Local Plan (2018) and will continue to do so.

No comment.

The Local Plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals through creating policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. 4.29 Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge. 4.30 Pace is committed to providing a positive legacy from the development that it promotes, and this can be achieved from meaningful engagement with the local community to gain their input into the design of the proposed development, including the site layout and provision of specific local infrastructure or contributions towards this. Indeed, this intention has been demonstrated in Pace’s recent exemplar engagement with the local community and other stakeholders. 4.31 Pace is a landowner that takes a long-term view of delivering positive development that provides benefits for the local community.

5.21 The Local Plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals through creating policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. 5.22 This can be achieved from meaningful engagement with the local community to gain their input into the design of the proposed development, including the site layout, house types and provision of specific local infrastructure or contributions towards this.

4.25 The Local Plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals through creating policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. 4.26 Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge. 4.27 M Scott Properties Ltd is committed to providing a positive legacy from the development that it promotes, and this can be achieved from meaningful engagement with the local community to gain their input into the design of the proposed development, including the site layout and provision of specific local infrastructure or contributions towards this.

5.25 Policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. 5.26 Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge. 5.27 Such measures would assist with addressing the concerns of the community during the development management process.

5.21 Policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities.

Policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge.

2.32 It is crucial that new development embodies the existing high-quality character features of the surrounding context which are highlighted by the local community. As part of the development proposals at Steeple Morden the high-quality design cues can be incorporated to the design reflecting local design considerations. In short, the scheme a scheme is capable of being designed which is appropriate to its location, but which also creates its own sense of place. This is supported by, and achieved through, the provision of public open space on site of a type that is appropriate to the needs of the community.

4.26 The Local Plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals through creating policies and procedures that encourage meaningful consultation and require developers to demonstrate how schemes have been influenced by local communities. 4.27 Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge. 4.28 Jesus College is committed to providing a positive legacy from the development that it promotes, and this can be achieved from meaningful engagement with the local community to gain their input, including to the site layout, design and provision of specific local infrastructure or contributions towards it. The College is a landowner that takes a long-term view of delivering development that can provide benefits for the local community.

2.38 These proposals were submitted within the previous call for sites consultation in March 2019. By submitting at the early stage, it maximises the chance for local residents to provide their thoughts and help shape the final masterplan of the site prior to it being included within the adopted version of Greater Cambridge Plan.

5.20 The community at all levels should be encouraged to engage in the development process to help shape new proposals. Policies and procedures should encourage meaningful consultation and require Parish Councils to engage with developers in advance of planning applications being submitted. Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant).

Community engagement should be sought during the design process, during construction and through opportunities to influence the scheme and /or be engaged in its management and maintenance after completion (where relevant), particularly in circumstances where unforeseen consequences emerge. L&Q Estates Ltd and Hill Residential Ltd are committed to working with stakeholders to deliver a proposal that meets the needs of both East Cambridgeshire and Greater Cambridge Authorities and to fully address the four ‘big themes’ of Climate Change; Biodiversity and green spaces; Wellbeing and social inclusion; and Great Places. The Town & Country Planning Association outline in their guidance on new settlements that land value capture is for the benefit of the community. A strong vision, community engagement, the community ownership of land and long-term stewardship are components of successful new settlements. The proposal for a new community at the Six Mile Bottom Estate has the potential to include the community ownership of assets, through a Trust structure. Through this model all residents will be members of the Trust which will be funded through an annual charge applied to all dwellings. This is becoming a common model in the long-term stewardship of successful communities.

Set out expected requirements or standards of community engagement at the pre-application stage to encourage public engagement. The standards would be scaled according to the size of the development. • Look favourably upon applications where the developer can demonstrate they have met preapplication engagement requirements. Applications that can demonstrate that they have responded to the feedback from the community in a significant way should also be favoured. • Applications should conform with Design Guides and plans which have been created by the local community, such as Village Design Guides and Neighbourhood Plans. Introduce a programme for all villages/parishes/neighbourhoods to produce a design guide, neighbourhood plan or Conservation Area Appraisal if relevant. • Policy statements in the plan should afford sufficient weight to design guides or neighbourhood plans that have been created by the community (eg by considering them as SPDs), such that applications that do not conform can be turned down without risk of appeal. • Changes should be introduced to the planning process that will encourage greater community engagement. For example: - community groups being allowed to speak at planning committee for longer - the current 3 minutes in total for all community representatives is quite frankly ridiculous and is the kind of thing which makes communities feel that the system is stacked against them. - the on-line system should be improved to make it easier for residents to be made aware of applications and to understand them. Community groups do not have the resources to wade through hundreds of documents and thousands of pages of technical information. For every application we would like to see a summary document produced by planning officers which includes location, drawings, summarises the development, highlights potential planning issues, and signposts to those documents which may be of particular relevance to the community. - introduce an automated notification system that would enable community groups to check-list criteria and receive email notifications of any applications which match that criteria (eg location, size, type, etc). • For large developments requiring a masterplan we would like to see public-friendly, planningfor-real style workshops take place. These should seek to engage the types of people who would be likely to move into the new development.

• Camcycle has extensive experience of working with the planning system and we know that it is incredibly difficult for people to engage with and respond to planning applications and consultations. • If the Local Plan is to encourage more community participation then the systems used must be improved. • Simple things like determining the closure date of consultations or which document should be looked at for a summary of the planning application are too difficult with the current system let alone having sensible approaches to engagement. • Seeing the difference in quality and liveability of development of Marmalade Lane vs most other developments in the Cambridge region shows just how much more liveable and sustainable our developments can be when the community and the people who will live in the developments are involved in the design. • Out of town developers, concerned with profit above all else, frequently underestimate the needs of people who cycling, the number of people who will cycle and the extent of provision of cycling facilities. • Ensuring local people can contribute to these consultations and taking the contributions of organisations like Camcycle seriously can prevent the issues that arise from underprovision. Stronger planning policies developed with extensive community consultation will also help with these issues.