Question 21. How should the Local Plan protect our heritage and ensure new development is well-designed?

Conversions and extensions should reflect the style of architecture of their buildings. Care should be taken in areas of historic buildings and housing to continue the architectural style. The County Council should not be allowed to remove historic street furniture and lighting. New developments should reflect the historic nature of their communities.

Attention should be paid to protecting and enhancing heritage assets across Greater Cambridge and ensuring that development proposals do not detrimentally impact on heritage assets in adjoining areas.

It is not fully appreciated that once heritage assets are spoiled or diminished, they are lost forever. Therefore the threshold for any deviation from protection needs to be extraordinarily high. Further, the fact that assets may already be partially compromised cannot ever be used as a rationale to allow further harm (as was done to the Grade 2 Almshouses in Cottenham). It is also important to recognise that the harm to many of our conservation areas and green space comes not from new building but from increased traffic that reduces the impact of these heritage assets. It is worthy of a policy to consider and mitigate both the direct and indirect effects on heritage assets and conservation areas from new developments. The concept of tranquility in an increasingly built-up area needs to be emphasized.

think about density of development/ heights of nearby buildings, so they are not out of keeping/over dominating. Make all new spaces considerate of surrounding materials/building methods. Make all new developments have open spaces, vistas to see through to connect new to other pre-existing areas (fewer blocks that dominate!). Think about longevity of cladding, and upkeep in covenants. Rigidly stick to the highest possible efficiency and building material standards, so new properties stand the test of time, and not just cheap infill.

Architecture is so subjective. To ensure new development is well-designed, the only thing I can suggest is to encourage and facilitate wider participation in the planning process, in the hope that crowdsourced feedback will prevent more Marques and columns (University Arms hotel) etc. Perhaps displays of a developer’s proposal at the actual site would help, by engaging directly with those people whose homes overlook it and who walk and cycle past it. These are the people who will suffer (or benefit) the most when the project manifests as a carbuncle (or thing of beauty).

There should be a Greater Cambridge design guide which should be adhered to by every new development. There are some wonderfully designed developments in Cambridge (Marmalade Lane, Vie Development, much of Eddington) but also some terrible ones (CB1, The Marque). New development should meet standards of sustainability (including high-quality and accessible cycle parking) and beauty, with consideration for how it complements the local landscape and architectural styles.

If the Local Plan (of action) does not challenge the government's accepted way of doing business which is contrary to its Climate Targets then all these questions are almost irrelevant. Whatever our answers to these questions, we will not reach Carbon Neutrality while government targets for new homes and the projected (but not defined new businesses that will supply the anticipated jobs) are in direct opposition to its own climate targets, and what is actually needed to boldy and quickly reduce carbon emissions. These questions if they don't question the fundamental premise amount to a cynical greenwashing exercise. We have so little time.

Our historic buildings are being dissolved by air pollution from motor vehicles. Our green spaces are never peaceful as they are always ruined by the constant noise from cars. Cycling is quiet and clean. Cycling is part of the Cambridge culture and tourists and locals like taking pictures of bikes as classic Cambridge scenes. I've never seen anybody take a picture of a car park. So policies for less cars (and less car parking) and more cycling are required.

As the entire watercourse of Hobson’s Brook, runnels and pipework are of great historical value they form an important and integral part of the historic fabric of Greater Cambridge. The system has been in existence for more than four hundred years, during which time it has continuously supplied clean, fresh water to sites in central Cambridge. According to Historic England, in its listing of the Trumpington Street runnels, the ‘water supply system (is) of undoubted historic significance in a national context’. What do we have to do? The HCT would like to see stronger protection for this watercourse and its built structures. At present there is statutory protection for the Conduit Head at Lensfield Road (Scheduled Ancient Monument) and various built structure that are Listed Buildings, Grade II (the Nine Wells monument, the runnels in Trumpington Street on the west side of the brook, the 19th-century fountain base at Market Hill, the bath and pond at Emmanuel College, the bathing pool at Christ’s College, four cast-iron bridges over the brook along Brookside and Trumpington Road, together with entries and cast iron railings.) Increased statutory protection might include making the Conduit Head a Listed Building, listing the underground pipework and making the entire length of the Brook a Conservation Area. It should also be designated, as a whole, as Green Space. What are we already doing? Various statutory and non-statutory designations apply to parts of the whole watercourse system of Hobson’s Brook (see above). Although these designations are helpful the approach is piecemeal. The Cambridge Local Plan Policy 62 protects local heritage assets (criteria and list in Appendix G). The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy NH/4 protects heritage assets. What are the key issues? The HCT would like to see a more integrated approach to the protection of the heritage value of the whole system of Nine Wells, Hobson’s Brook, Hobson’s Conduit Head, the runnels and the underground pipework. In the first instance the entire above-ground section should be designated as Green Space. Over and above this we would welcome its designation as a Conservation Area (excluding the runnels and underground pipework, which can be, and partly are, separately designated).

Local design guides coming out of Neighborhood Plans.

The Market at The City Centre needs to be protected by a local bylaw to preserve it as a social Hub (see included paper on the importance of markets as social spaces published under the Joseph Rowntree Foundation ) that is dependent on its commercial centre for survival. It is also a place where new enterprises, as well as established local businesses, can thrive giving employment to many. Its logistical functioning and detailed needs, as well as its practicing customs must be enshrined in local law under the legal polarity of common law, so there can never again be a threat to its right continue as a commercial, living, historical, heritage continuum in its rightful place in the Market Sq. . Its presence is priceless and it needs to be guarded as our local jewel in the Cities Crown for perpetuity. Its brand of an openair old fashioned English market with fixed old English market stalls also needs legalising under branding rules so it cannot be tampered with or destroyed by modern new flimsey 'out of keeping with the historic feel' stalls. This is essential for its value as a well loved local and visitors place of felt 'common ownership' and sense of connection, meaning and belonging. I realise this will take some defining but it is up to us to guard this jewel.

The Bursars’ Sub-Committee has made comments to Question 8 within the Issues and Options documents on the same matter which raises issues about priorities in terms of protecting the historic development whilst addressing other key matters such as energy provision and requirements and the climate change agenda. This is particularly relevant since Cambridge has an historic city centre of national and international significance. Whilst there has been significant growth over the past 30 years in and around the Cambridge area, the historic and heritage assets of the City remain intact both in terms of the character and setting of the buildings. New development need not compromise the historic fabric of the buildings, nor the historic setting of the city and we consider that the application of well-considered planning policies will necessarily strike the appropriate balance.

More Neighbourhood Plans can recognise and protect key local vistas, Conservation Areas and non-designated heritage assets, alongside Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments. Development Control must give more weight to design factors laid out in Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Statements if local character is to be conserved.

Ensure very high eco standards in new builds, including no fossil fuels, having solar panels, rain water storage, excellent insulation, good green spaces etc

Far too few quality public buildings are built. Outside of the University, with very few exceptions (new mosque, Marmalade Lane), few new developments in Cambridge achieve notable quality, let alone outstanding. Too many are very poor – the Marque, Cambridge Leisure Park and Travelodge, the new hotel at Cambridge North Station, and much new housing is bland and uninspired. Planning policies should encourage the development of at least some landmark buildings within each site (high quality materials and design, intended to stand the tests of time), and all large new development sites should aim for consistent high-quality design and materials throughout the site.

‘Historic Environment Strategy’ needed. The next Local Plan must include an ‘historic environment strategy’ if we are to retain the essential character of our streets, city and surrounds. Such a strategy is required in the National Planning Policy Framework, but still Cambridge remains without one. This is an urgent priority, so that Planning will have a framework for making informed and holistic decisions about new infrastructure and building, population growth, biodiversity, sustainability and pollution — all in the context of doing what can be done to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. Stricter guidelines based on this strategy should be included within the Local Plan, and vigorously enforced. Currently not all areas are included within Conservation Areas, so they get scant review and the character of many areas is being eroded, one planning application at a time. To help with this project, the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum stands ready to work with the Council on further developing our draft Street Appraisals for the area. We have already done much of the work and would be happy to offer it as part of the Local Plan process.

The use of Design Codes specific to a local area is critical, this should reflect local building typologies and topography. There has to a recognition that forms of construction are changing through modern methods of construction, and design codes should allow for flexibility for new house building technologies where they are contributing towards the objective of being carbon neutral.

Yes. The strategy needs to embrace growth with some impacts being tolerable to facilitate this.

Self build should be part of the picture, there is always a lot of talk of character but I don’t see the new developments having a great deal of character or interest. The houses often look OK but there is no space for different styles to be slotted in in the way an older community has a mix of styles and periods. Self builders are often looking to do something interesting and different, give them a bit of flexibility in planning and integrate the self build plots the councils are legally required to find into some of the development. Older developments have a massive mix of housing styles and that’s what gives them character. You should be looking to find creative ways to achieve that in new projects. I would like to see a greater emphasis on incorporating greenery with the built environment. All new developments seem to have big brick houses, monoculture lawns and a few trees. Can’t we diversify what housing looks like here, lets include plants in the actual buildings, more green roofs, blocks of flats with integrated planting like you see on the continent, much more creativity. Half an hour on pinterest shows you lots of amazing creative things.

Historic environment: The historic environment of the city must be taken as a whole, including its skyline, not in discrete segments. The Suburbs and Approaches studies put the edges of Cambridge in the limelight. These are as much part of the historic environment as the centre. As the SNNF answer already points out there is no Historic Environment Strategy. There was, during the 1990s. The city has not been accorded World Heritage Status for the very reason that it has been spoiled over time by mismanaged development, for instance Petty Cury, another more recent example being Station Road with its erosion of the skyline and wind-tunnel effect. This maltreatment of Cambridge needs to stop. Good design means high quality architecture: Meeting sustainability criteria in climate change terms is of course essential, but is not the only meaning of 'good design'. It also means pleasing to behold and live in. Visual wellbeing is provided not only by green spaces but also by the built environment. Moreover, they should be taken together. The city has to be pleasing not only for visitors to the historic centre but also for its residents right across the city. Charm should be an objective in planning, not just a by-product. Most importantly, all buildings whether housing or commercial must be good pieces of architecture, built of attractive materials. Sometimes this can be achieved inexpensively and more speedily with prefabricated buildings, rather than monotonous Barrett Home type developments. Visual impact of approaches: Moreover the approaches to the city must also be our concern, how it looks when we approach it by rail from London, or see it from Red Hill or from Barton, and so forth.

No comment.

As set out above, the proposed redevelopment has been subject to extensive discussions with the Council as part of ongoing pre-application engagement to establish the optimal use and design for the site. Pace is seeking to bring forward an innovative and highly sustainable commercial-led development achieving exemplar standards in terms of maximising opportunities for energy efficiency. The heritage assets in and around the site have been considered carefully as part of the design process. The proposed redevelopment will retain certain heritage and cultural elements on the site including the Flying Pig Public House, whilst bringing forward an extremely high-quality design that will add to the vitality of the surrounding area.

4.38 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185). 4.39 An Initial Heritage Assessment has been prepared in respect of Land at Frog End, Shepreth and accompanies these representations. This has informed the emerging proposals for the site to ensure the significance of the Shepreth Conservation Area and nearby Listed Buildings is protected through careful and sensitive design. Further detail on this assessment and how it has informed the site design is included in Section 2 of these representations.

2.37 Development in Great Cambridge should seek to protect heritage assets through welldesigned new developments. 2.38 At Steeple Morden the developments as proposed would have regard to the form and density of surrounding parts of the village and thereby seek to maintain the setting of the adjacent listed building. They are also demonstrably capable of maintaining the current landscape buffers and the new development could take design cues from the listed building to further the influence of the listed building.

4.36 The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for development to respond to the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185).

5.1.1 With regards to conservation and the historic environment, Gladman make refence to the NPPF (2019), specifically paragraphs 195-197, which outlines the policy tests which should be applied where development effects designated and non-designated heritage assets. The Councils need to ensure that the policies within the Local Plan reflect the national policy and aligns with these varying tests. 5.1.2 Specifically the NPPF states that developments leading to substantial harm of a designated heritage asset should be refused unless it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm, where proposals would lead to less than substantial harm then this harm should be weighed against the public benefits. With regards to proposals impacting on non-designated heritage assets a balanced judgment will be required.

2.17 The new Local Plan should support new development, especially development on previously developed land, which can enhance the setting of heritage assets and provide a betterment to the historic environment.

National Planning Policy states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creating better places in which to live and work, and more support for development among communities. The Local Plan should include for a policy framework that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. New development within or in proximity to heritage assets can be appropriate and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 185). A Concept Vision has been prepared for the Site, this together with future detailed masterplan, will taken into account the context of the site in order to suggest a layout that would sensitively respond to the context of the site. A design-led new community of the scale proposed will allow ensure that new development is well design and can positively contribute to local character and distinctness.

2.22 Section 16 of the NPPF relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Paragraph 185 particularly refers to plan-making and how plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, with a key consideration being the “desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”. 2.23 Local Planning Authorities in the preparation of a new Local Plan should therefore consider closely the opportunities for new development to have a positive impact on the historic environment, and capitalise on opportunities to improve and enhance a settlement’s historic fabric. 2.24 There is an opportunity for the emerging Local Plan to allocate small to medium sites that can accommodate lower density development and higher quality build design that will relate positively to the historic environment whilst supporting sustainable growth in rural locations. More localised policies can then ensure these sites are appropriately designed through the Development management process. 2.25 A residential allocation at land to the south of Barley Road has the opportunity to deliver sympathetic development that compliments the historic fabric of Great Chishill through high quality, low density development with a focus on a high standard of design in accordance with the NPPF.

Heritage conservation is fundamental to the National Trusts’ charitable purposes and the National Planning Policy Framework correctly establishes a very high threshold for new development to pass in historic places. Change can be acceptable in such places but requires exceptional design quality and respect for heritage and its cultural importance.