Question 4

Neutral

No comment.

Mostly yes

No comment.

Nothing chosen

Object: We continue to be concerned about the sheer scale of residential and employment growth on the site and the capacity of the site to absorb such growth as an appropriate density for the City and its setting (more on this in question 6) Suggested Change: We look forward to continuing to work with you regarding densities, heights, scale and massing on this site. We look forward to seeing the report that you are commissioning in this regard.

Nothing chosen

Will the housing on offer attract the right people for the jobs there? CSP attracts international employees but they may not want to live at NEC. People don't like Orchard Park because it is hard to create a community. Tower blocks with the factory next door – this is not a vision we support. Concern that the District Council are going through with this and not taking on board the views of the parish councils. There must be jobs for young people and unskilled people. Employers allocated housing is contrary to Cambridge Policy 45 (though supported at South Cambs). Some units have very little parking – tradesmen might need vans and more secure parking. Is it appropriate to make the build to rent homes all HMO? (We are not sure this is correct, but it was voiced.) A co-housing development as at K1 Orchard Park might help to clarify it is the co-housing part (K1).

Mostly not

Further comments: While the recognition of the need to provide genuinely affordable homes for those working locally and who cannot afford open market prices or rents is welcomed; we consider that Policies in the AAP should make clear that local priority should extend beyond those working in North East Cambridge to those working in other locations accessible from by walking, cycling and public transport. This should include other locations in the City or on the City fringes. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) published its housing needs case in March 2020 which makes a compelling case for alternative housing tenure types to meet the needs of lower and middle income working people at the hospital. Polices 13c and 13d of the Draft NEC AAP, provide an opportunity to provide high quality, accessible and affordable homes for working people, and the policy should allow a broad interpretation of ‘local’. For instance, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the wider Cambridge Biomedical Campus will be less than 7-8 minutes by train once Cambridge South Station is opened (anticipated c. 2025). This would mean that housing proposals at North East Cambridge have a real opportunity to meet the housing needs of hospital staff and other campus employees, and it would seem unfortunate to devise policies which unfairly or unintentionally exclude NHS and other staff working in other critical roles which could be easily accessed by sustainable modes of travel. Given the potential role Build to Rent schemes could play in delivering high quality rental accommodation, CUH also wish to question the rationale of artificially limiting the amount of Build to Rent accommodation as set in Policy 13c. We consider this a good opportunity to secured high quality affordable rented properties, and that the market should determine levels of demand for this type of product.

Mostly yes

The broad geographic location of business space and new homes shown on the plan on page 16 is appropriate. The reference in the supporting paragraphs to job numbers (20,000 new jobs) should not be treated as a ceiling. Further consideration to the development capacity of parcels will be required following receipt of the responses to this consultation including the comments on policy 12a and 8.9 Trajectories below.

Mostly not

Refer to comments under Policy 12a, 12b 13a, 13b, 13c and 13d

Mostly not

See response to question 1.

Neutral

• The district appears to be made up entirely of flats, where is the option of a three-bedroom home with garden, which is the most popular form of home in the UK? • Cambridge needs more homes as the expected job market grows. The development will have 8,000 new homes, housing approximately 18-19,000 people with around 11,000 expected to be in employment. The vision is to create 20,000 jobs meaning more homes will have to be built to accommodate them or 9,000 people will need to get to work from outside the development putting even more pressure on resources and homes and forcing up costs of rent and house prices.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

• Clarity is needed on how the 8,000+ new homes and 20,000 new jobs fit within the envelope of the Local Plans (33,500 new homes and 44,100 new jobs between 2011 and 2031). • The “Preferred approach” in the Skills, Training & Local Employment Topic Paper states, “The North East Cambridge development is likely to bring 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs through a mix of employment opportunities supporting local residents and the Greater Cambridge economy.” So, where does the 20,000 new jobs come from? • Already 15,400 new jobs have been created in Greater Cambridge (ONS data). At least another 34,000 are planned excluding NEC. This estimate includes (see Appendix C for sources): — Biomedical Campus (5,000 estimated of 8,750 expected to be delivered between 2017 and 2031) — North West Cambridge (3,000 in 100,000m2) — West Cambridge (5,000 in 170,000m2) — Wellcome Genome Campus (4,330 in 146,832m2) — Babraham Institute (400 in 10,000m2) — Granta Park (1,700 @ 32.5 m2/person in 55,463m2) — Peterhouse Technology Park (1,900 @ 15m2/person in 28,000m2) — 104–112 Hills Rd, Cambridge (2,500 in 26,674m2) — Northstowe (6,000 – 2020 Economic Development Strategy) — Waterbeach New Town (4,000 @ 10m2 / person in 24,800m2 + 15,000m2) — Huawei, Sawston (350+ in 9,500 m2) • With 20,000 new jobs at NEC, the total projection exceeds 69,000 jobs, compared with 44,100 in the Local Plans. The housing requirement for those jobs is around 55,000, i.e. over 20,000 more than currently planned for. • The 8,350 homes planned for NEC are expected to accommodate about 18,000 people, of whom about 10,500 will be in employment (69.5% of Cambridge residents are aged 16–64, and 83% of them are economically active), some self-employed. The addition of 20,000 new jobs at NEC will therefore create at least 9,500 new jobs for which housing will be required elsewhere. In other words, this development will increase, not decrease overall demand for housing, exacerbating an already acute and worsening housing shortage in Greater Cambridge. • If NEC is to have only a neutral impact on housing demand, the number of new jobs should not exceed 10,500. How many workplaces that equates to must take into account realistic predictions for self-employment, home-working, remote-working, and hot- desking. • Connected to this point, since most housing cannot be delivered until the water treatment plant is decommissioned and there is no such impediment to building most of the new employment places, we recommend phasing the build-out of both employment and housing land parcels to maintain balance in the housing demand.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

I've put 'neutral' (this is not my area of expertise). As a lay person, it looks reasonable, given the desperate need Cambridge has for more affordable homes, but I am not a supporter of the wider Cambridge growth agenda, both on climate change grounds and because it will have a negative impact on Cambridge as a place to live.

Mostly not

Further comments: Please see accompanying letter/statement From Letter: It is supported that the AAP recognises under Section 6. Jobs, homes and services that the principal role of North East Cambridge is as a strategically important economic driver for Greater Cambridge and further afield. In this regard it is noted that in allocating land at Cambridge Northern Fringe East as a Strategic Site under Policy SS/4, the SCDC Local Plan states at criteria 1 that this will “enable the creation of a revitalise, employment focussed area centred on a new transport interchange. It is considered that, as such, the retention and availability of additional employment space should continue to be the primary focus of development within the area, building upon the existing reputation of Cambridge Science Park, St John’s Innovation Park and other commercial uses that are present. In this regard it is noted that the proposals could create up to 20,000 new jobs in the area through intensification of the existing business parks and the introduction of new business space on the east side of Milton Road, including integration with housing in this area. The inclusion of new homes within the AAP area alongside the key employment growth objective is considered appropriate in principle, particularly in view of the desirability of capitalising on the proximity of the established Cambridge North railway station and in pursuit of maximising sustainability, as encouraged within Government guidance. However, it is felt that the quantum of housing proposed, at up to 8,000 dwellings, within a relatively small proportion of the overall AAP area is potentially excessive, resulting in particularly high densities, with the majority of the site at more than 300 dwellings per hectare (dph), and peaking at 385 dph. It is noted that reference is made to the need for further analysis of the impacts of the building heights proposed, at up to 13 storeys, on the historic setting of Cambridge to be undertaken by or in conjunction with Historic England. Whilst the general approach to vertical integration of mixed uses shown within Figure 31 is considered acceptable in principle, the inclusion of more traditional industrial and strorage and distribution uses (B2 and B8), such as those close to the railway line and the aggregates railheads, alongside the new residential and community uses, may make for an uncomfortable relationship in some quarters. In view of the issues set out above, it is considered that the capacity of the site for as many as 8,000 new homes remains to be fully established as appropriate or achievable. Certainly the incorporation of such large scale of residential development should not be to the detriment of Cambridge’s established status as a dynamic, historic city, and to the principal role of this area of change within the spatial strategy as a driver of employment growth. In this regard it is considered relevant to have regard to the opportunities offered by the housing led development of Waterbeach New Town a short distance to the north, particularly in view of the extremely efficient travel times between the two, facilitated by the direct rail connection and consented new railway station (in addition to other proposed and potential non-car modes). Notwithstanding the desirability of both areas achieving an appropriate mix of housing and employment, the intention should remain for that balance to be focussed and skewed in preference of employment use in the case of the North East Cambridge AAP area, consistent with the established spatial strategy.

Mostly not

Further comments: We believe more housing is the priority rather than more jobs

Not at all

• In order to ensure new jobs at NEC do not increase demand for housing outside Greater Cambridge, the ratio of new jobs to new homes must be kept in balance (to date that has been approximately 1.3 jobs per home). • The build-out of office space and housing must also stick to this ratio in order to avoid temporary housing pressures. • If the ratio goes out of balance, then there will be more commuting from outside Greater Cambridge, much of which will be by car, increasing traffic congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions in the region. • Plans must take into account changing working patterns, including home-working, job-sharing and hot-desking. The number of FTE jobs per workplace is likely to rise significantly over coming years.

Mostly not

As per the attached representation there is no adopted policy justification for the significant level of housing proposed and most notably on area C. The current adopted policy basis is for employment led development. The balance will need to be adjusted to allow the consolidation and retention of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant on site.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Nothing chosen

In order to fully answer this question, please read this section alongside the supplemental full response prepared by Volterra. The overarching vision set out for North East Cambridge includes the following principles (among others): ‘have a real sense of place’, ‘firmly integrated with surrounding communities’, ‘provide a significant number of new homes, a range of jobs for all’, ‘planned around walking, cycling and public transport, discouraging car use’. Implicit to the success of achieving these principles is the range and mix of uses proposed, and the balance between those proposed uses. The vision includes plans for an additional 8,000 new homes, with 40% being affordable, the baseline position includes just 3 homes currently on site. Alongside 8,000 new homes, there are plans for an additional 20,000 new jobs within the area on top of the 15,000 existing jobs currently provided within CSP, the existing business parks and on the industrial estates. This presents a high likelihood of creating an imbalance of jobs relative to working residents within the NECAAP area. In order to ascertain whether this would create an imbalance more widely, it is necessary to consider firstly the need for both homes and jobs, and secondly how this very localised area interacts with the wider area around it. How balanced is the wider Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire area? Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire have relatively high economic activity rates, coupled with generally low unemployment rates. The difference between the skill levels of residents is larger in Cambridge, where there are more highly skilled residents but also a higher proportion of residents with no qualifications. There is currently a slight overbalance towards jobs rather than residents in the two local authorities, particularly within Cambridge City. The workforces in both local authorities are relatively well-contained, with 82% and 74% of the workforce respectively commuting from within the county of Cambridgeshire. This is broadly in line with the ONS definition of a ‘Travel to Work Area’ (TTWA), which suggests that approximately 75% of the workforce should commute from within that given area. The NEC AAP area is an almost exclusively employment-focused area currently, with a higher density of jobs than residents. Employment centres are (expectedly) much more focused than areas where residents live, with the main employment centres existing around the key transport hubs within the local authorities. What quantum of jobs and housing growth are planned/needed? In quantitative terms, the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) was judged to be 14,000 new dwellings for Cambridge and 19,000 for South Cambridgeshire over the total period, equivalent to 700 and 950 new dwellings per year respectively. In the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, adopted September 2018, this target for housing rises to 19,500 new homes in the district over the same time period, equivalent to 975 homes per year. The SHMA deemed that over the plan period (2011 to 2031), the affordable housing need amounted to a total of 15,975 affordable homes across the two areas, of which 10,402 should be in Cambridge and 5,573 in South Cambridgeshire. This amounts to an annual need of 520 affordable homes in Cambridge and 279 in South Cambridgeshire. With regards to employment, Policy S/5 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan establishes a target of 22,000 new jobs to be provided in the district in the twenty years to 2031. According to research by Cambridge Econometrics, sectors anticipated to grow in the future include professional services, computing and business services, construction and health. Considering this 20-year target on an annual basis, South Cambridgeshire would need to deliver 1,100 new jobs per year on average to deliver the target amount. It should be noted that the number of jobs is a forecast and not a target to be met at all costs. The Employment Land Review identifies that employment growth on this scale would generate a net demand for around 143,000m2 of additional employment floorspace or 43ha of land in the ‘B’ use classes. Employment has been growing at a faster rate than housing is being delivered in both local authorities. This could represent a problem going into the future, whereby both local authorities already relying on in commuting the need for which will increase if this disparity is not addressed. What would this vision mean for the NEC area? The NECAAP specifies an additional 234,500m2 of B1-use office space to be delivered in the North East Cambridge area to 2040. The AAP justifies this quantum of space as follows: “The amount of employment floorspace identified for North East Cambridge has the potential to provide a significant increase in the quantity of B1 accommodation in the area to meet future business needs.” As of 2018, there are an estimated 10,400 people working in office-based employment in the Local Area, with an estimated 34,250 and 35,000 respectively in the districts of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. The main office hubs within the borough are in the Cambridge city centre, around Cambridge station, and around Cambridge North station in close proximity to the NEC AAP area. The densest area of the borough on this measure is around Cambridge station. Over the period 2009-2018, office-based employment in the Local Area, defined to act as a proxy for the NEC AAP area, has grown by 35%. This is equivalent to an average annual growth rate of 3.9%, below the average annual growth rates of office employment in South Cambridgeshire (6.4%) and Cambridge (4.1%) respectively. The 234,500m2 of B1 floorspace outlined within the NECAAP is estimated to deliver an additional 16,600 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in the North East Cambridge area by 2040, assuming a standard density of one FTE per 12m2 of commercial office space. After accounting for 2018 part-time working patterns in the NEC area, this amounts to an estimated 18,700 office-based jobs. This increase therefore represents a 180% uplift (almost tripling) in the amount of 2018 office-based employment supported in the Local Area, as well as a 27% uplift for Cambridge-based and South Cambridgeshire-based 2018 office employment combined. To put this into context, this 180% uplift in local area office employment would need an average of 8.2% office employment growth every year over the period 2018-2040, in order to achieve the scale of B1 office growth that the NECAAP is targeting. This is more than double the average annual growth rate in office employment recorded since 2009 in the local area (3.9%), highlighting the potentially over ambitious B1 targets set out in the draft AAP. In absolute terms, the local area has increased its office employment by an estimated 2,700 over the past decade. The equivalent figures for the whole of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire are 9,250 and 12,800 new office jobs respectively. This means that over the period to 2040, the NECAAP area would need to deliver seven times more new office jobs than it has over the past decade, or 85% of the office jobs delivered across the whole of the two boroughs. This suggests a very considerable uplift in future growth rate, and an extreme concentration of this future growth in one specific location. The need for more residential growth We estimate the number of residents that could be supported in the proposed 8,000 homes. We do this in two ways, firstly using the current residents per dwelling ratio in the two districts (2.31 residents per dwelling), and secondly using the GLA Population Yield Calculator – set in Outer London achieving an average PTAL rating of 3-4 – and assuming an even split of units between 1 to 4-bed residential units, with a 60-40 split of private versus affordable. The resident per dwelling method results in an estimated 18,500 new residents, and the GLA calculator estimates that 20,800 residents could be supported by the 8,000 units. Over the period April 2019 – March 2020, the (weighted) average 16-64 economic activity rate across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire was 82.3%. Of these residents, approximately 11,900-15,100 would be expected to be of working age (16-64). Applying the average economic activity rate in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire to these working age residents, we’d expect 9,800-12,500 of these residents to be economically active. Clearly, it is not conceivable that all of these 9,800-12,500 economically active residents moving into the area would be seeking work, as many would already be employed. However, in the scenario where they were all seeking work, there would still be a shortfall of 7,500-10,200 between new jobs and residents in the NEC area. Including the existing 15,000 jobs already within the NEC area would further accentuate this imbalance. Therefore, in order to support the planned levels of new jobs and new homes, there would clearly need to be a substantial amount of in-commuting to the area, which can have a range of adverse impacts such as noise and congestion. This analysis suggests that the proposed balance might not be quite right. Instead, there should perhaps be more of a focus on homes rather than jobs in the NEC area. The combined targets for housing and employment delivery over the period 2011 to 2031 across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire are as follows: • Employment: 44,100 new jobs, equivalent to 2,205 additional jobs a year; and • Housing: 33,500 new homes, equivalent to 1,675 additional homes a year. Comparing this to the target for the NEC area, the 20,000 new jobs would amount to 45% of the total employment growth targeted for both local authorities combined over the plan periods. In contrast, the 8,000 new homes targeted for the NEC would only deliver 24% of the combined housing target for the local authorities, highlighting the clear bias towards employment in the area when compared to residential need. What types of jobs & homes are needed? Creating a community requires a mix of uses: commercial, residential and community uses, but also different types of jobs within the commercial uses. The NECAAP at present clearly has a focus on the additional provision of office jobs. Whilst these jobs are often seen as highly skilled and high value, they may not necessarily be the sorts of jobs that local residents, and those residents who most need access to employment opportunities, are most suited to and hence may not be the most accessible for those who need them most. According to the Skills, Training & Local Employment Topic Paper jointly released by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council , in Cambridge approximately 30% of the city’s jobs are in the knowledge intensive sector, and these jobs require specialist skills and are highlypaid. Unfortunately, however, there is a small but growing proportion of jobs in the city that are paid below the real living wage (13.1% in 2018). In addition to this, due to success of the tech sector and the world-renowned university: “there are large numbers of high-skilled jobs, some unskilled or low-skilled jobs, but very few jobs requiring mid-level skills compared to other parts of the country. This makes it very difficult for people with limited qualification or skills to secure jobs with salaries that are high enough to meet the high cost of living and housing in the city.” To counter this, the councils are aiming to reduce the skills gap in the local authorities through the following sorts of measures: • 400 new apprenticeships through partnership with Cambridge Regional College; • For school leavers looking to further their career, Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) has set up degree apprenticeships with a range of employers paying tuition fees alongside Government funding; Training and employment opportunities from developers secured through s106 agreements during the construction phase of development; and • Operational developers should provide an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP). Whilst these sorts of measures should all be viewed positively, to truly assess whether the appropriate types of jobs are being provided we need to assess the current conditions of the local NEC area. Analysis carried out on socio-economic indicators show that the NEC area is close to many groups of people who desperately require future economic opportunities to be provided to them, not all of which will be B1 office opportunities. We have analysed the index of multiple deprivation (by sub-domain) for the local area surrounding Cambridge Science Park (CSP) and the local authorities of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. The three figures below show that the area surrounding both CSP and the NECAAP area are among the most deprived in the local authorities, with respect to overall deprivation, as well as employment and skills deprivation levels. Clearly, if the residents living near the NEC area are among the most deprived in terms of education, skills and training, the provision of highly-skilled office jobs in the local area is likely going to do very little to improve their outcomes in life, as these types of jobs will not be accessible to them and will instead be filled by in-commuters. Instead, some lower skilled, entry level, but good quality career jobs are needed in the NEC (or wider local) area in order to offer opportunities for these groups. Previous work by Volterra and CSP identified the opportunity for 7,500 new jobs in skilled manufacturing at CSP North, just north of CSP and on the outskirts of the AAP area. As explained previously, with appropriate collaboration with partners, including the CRC, it is highly likely that these types of jobs would be better suited to addressing the future employment needs of some of the more deprived parts of the area, whilst also delivering growth in a highly exportable sector. When combining this potential employment growth along with that planned at the NEC area, it further underlines the potential imbalance between jobs and homes, and the importance of delivering the right kinds of jobs to maximise benefits for all, including importantly those who need improved opportunities most. Referring back then to some of the NECAAP’s principles: ‘firmly integrated with surrounding communities’, ‘provide a significant number of new homes, a range of jobs for all’, it becomes clear that the balance of types and quantum of jobs proposed in the NEC area will not deliver these objectives in isolation. Combined with the opportunity presented at CSP North, along with a reconsideration of the NEC quantum of growth in favour of homes, however, these principles could be met. Cambridge Science Park North: Trinity College is proposing to transform a parcel of agricultural land adjacent to the Cambridge Science Park into a world- leading centre of excellence in skilled manufacturing and development. Branded Cambridge Science Park North, it will be an extension of, and benefit from the successful innovation ecosystem of the Science Park. It will promote social inclusion by facilitating the creation of skilled, well paid jobs in local companies where people from all backgrounds work together. The Centre will be nestled in 250 acres of stunning parkland with recreational facilities open to local residents. Cambridge benefits from an incredibly successful Research and Development based economy. Indeed, Cambridge is home to companies that are famous for innovation. Trinity College through its development and nurturing of Cambridge Science Park has always been a pioneer in terms of supporting growth in Science and Technology in Cambridge. Innovation involves a high degree of risk; in particular, the risk that products may not perform in the real world in the same way they did in the laboratory or workshop. Often products need to be redesigned, re-tested and adapted to meet the needs of the market. Moreover, in order to stay ahead of their competitors, research intensive companies need to implement a programme of continuous innovation. Already, a number of Technology companies manufacture close to their research base where changes in design can easily be implemented and new product ideas rapidly prototyped and tested. This is an increasing trend particularly in the case of the low-volume, high value products such as robotics, medical devices, electronics and batteries - areas where Cambridge leads the world. Whilst there is a good supply of premises suitable for undertaking product research, when it comes to high quality, affordable manufacturing and testing space, there is a significant shortage in Cambridge. This type of employment typically needs to operate from larger buildings with more of a quality industrial nature and do not readily operate from the stock of offices and laboratories currently available within the local market. There is now a shortage of suitable manufacturing and testing space in the Cambridge area and the existing Cambridge Science Park. This is in part due to Cambridge’s success in providing the right conditions for Research and Development organisations to grow, however this has resulted in increasing office and laboratory values; while significant areas of potential new land have also been lost as a result of past and proposed housing development and allocations. This shortage of suitable available space means companies are being forced to undertake their manufacturing potentially in other regions of the UK, however given the global competition for attracting the economic benefits of this type of employment overseas locations will increasingly be considered if nearby premises are not available. The geographic distance between their research and manufacturing facilities can negatively impact business performance, leading to long term strategic business decisions focusing on the availability of whole lifecycle premises. CSP competes on a global scale with places such as Kista Science City, Stockholm, WISTA Science and Technology Park, Berlin Crucially though, without these manufacturing companies in Cambridge, there is a shortage of job opportunities for people who want to work in a technical or engineering environment but do not have the qualifications to undertake the roles that require a university degree. Opportunities that could benefit students at the Cambridge Regional College and North Cambridge Academy. As part of our work we have engaged with Cambridge Regional College who are very supportive of these proposals. Further conversations have also been held with Impington Village College and will be held with the North Cambridge Academy to understand the opportunities for their students. If Cambridge can supply the manufacturing space required by these companies, a new category of jobs could be created (illustrated in Figure 8). This would help to close the inequality gap in the city, and help lift families out of poverty, particularly those in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development such as Arbury and Kings Hedges. The benefit to the wider economy of skilled manufacturing and development in this location need to be considered by Greater Cambridge. This development within close proximity to Cambridge Science Park, the Guided Busway, Cambridge North Station and Cambridge Regional College presents this unique opportunity. This site is located On the Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt AND on Public Transport Corridors as identified as potential locations for growth within the Emerging Local Plan4 – both of these factors are of equal importance to this type of development.

Nothing chosen

Natural England believes the proposal for 8000 new homes and 20,000 additional jobs is a highly ambitious for such a small site already grid-locked by traffic and lacking significant areas of accessible natural greenspace. Please see our further comments below.

Nothing chosen

While RSPB have no specific comment to the questions, there are few points of principle we would like to raise. • While each subject area sets out advanced thinking to promote sustainable travel, provide social and cultural hubs and facilities, as well as achieving the right balance and density of domestic and commercial premises, these typically generate large proportions of hard landscape, exacerbating the ‘heat island’ effect.⁵, ⁶, ⁷ • To meet the aims and objectives of climate resilience, we feel it important all flat roofed buildings, have at the very minimum a biosolar green roof, and ultimately wherever possible a biosolar blue-green roof. We would like to see the landscaped roofs manipulated to benefit biodiversity, contributing toward net gain and mitigating for loss of brownfield habitat on site.⁸, ⁹ Where appropriate, some roofs and terraces may also be used for community food growing. • We would also encourage and support the use of green walls wherever possible across all domestic and commercial properties or premises.¹⁰ • We would like to see all domestic housing fitted with solar panels, ground source heat and water butts as a core function of their sustainability design. __________________________ Qualifying points to responses: ⁵We would urge every effort is made to maximise opportunities for green space. We would like to see a reduction of ‘dead space’ in paved and hard landscaped areas and given over instead to soft landscape, including rain gardens. ⁶Where appropriate, hard landscape must double additionally as flood storage facility and be used innovatively, where appropriate, to convey water as part of any SuDS management train. Such measures will add value to climate resilience and placemaking. ⁷We would also expect all hard surfaces, from foot and cycle paths to roads, to be permeable and remove the need for costly and environmentally damaging gully pots and other traditional outdated techniques. ⁸Green roofs help alleviate heat island effect, absorb atmospheric pollutants, provide summer and winter thermo-regulation of building temperature, acoustic insulation and reduce rates of run-off. Blue-green roofs provide protracted water storage which can either be released more slowly back into the system or for other purposes that will reduce the impacts on potable water supplies. This might also include the irrigation of green wall systems. ⁹Solar panels will work more efficiently when used in conjunction with the vegetation of a green roof, helping maintain a constant ambient working temperature of around 25⁰c. ¹⁰Green walls will improve climate resilience by thermo regulating the temperatures of buildings, improve acoustic insulation, trap airborne pollutants and help cool the atmosphere. In addition, they will provide amenity value.

Nothing chosen

4.1 In recognising the ambition to provide a mixed development and allow a more sustainable development reducing the need to tr vel, the mix provides the ability to live and work in North East Cambridge. 4.2 The spatial framework and table in Policy 13a shows the distribution of 8.000 homes across the NEC area that is broadly supported. It is noted Policy 13a states proposals for residential development will need to have regard to the councils’ latest evidence on housing need as set out in the Joint Housing Strategy (or any future update)’. 4.3 Measures to ensure an appropriate mix of development is delivered, in particular to not promote journeys into the area are included in the AAP. Policy 13d includes the need for developers to demonstrate how affordable private rent properties, expected as part of their developments, will be targeted to meet local worker need. Policy 15, covering shops and services seeks retail to beat a level to serve the local community.

Nothing chosen

Please see attached Letter including representations on behalf of The Crown Estate.

Nothing chosen

8000 homes equates to roughly 10,500 people in employment. Creating 20,000 new jobs will lead to a housing shortfall of 9,500. Covid-19 is changing the employment landscape, perhaps permanently. Surely the provision of commercial space should be re-evaluated in this light. Orchard Park never got its commercial space which was also supposed to act as noise attenutation. What legal guarantees are in place to ensure that the development is delivered to plan?

Mostly yes

We broadly support the proposed use of CSP for business-led development (see Annex 3). We would query the 72,250m2 of business space, shops and local services that is indicated in the plan for CSP. This figure appears to have been derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’ (‘TSDCA’). The Site falls within zone ‘CC’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 3.14ha (gross), and that a ‘discussion with landowner confirms that there is/are plot(s) within this development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period. Landowner has confirmed that the intention is to intensify existing land uses within this site and not to introduce residential development’. Site CC is identified as having potential capacity for 7,850m2 (NIA). It is not clear from the TSDCA plan which plots are considered for this, and we would welcome clarification from GCSP on this point. Building 140 is approximately 2,790m2 (GIA), and offers potential to increase floorspace significantly, by increasing its height to 6-storeys (max) and utilising a large element of its current car park.

Mostly yes

We broadly support the proposed use of CSP for business-led development (see Annex 3). We would query the 72,250m2 of business space, shops and local services that is indicated in the plan for CSP. This figure appears to have been derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’. The Site falls within zone ‘KK’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 2.14ha (gross) but has not been considered for any form of redevelopment on the basis that it is deemed to be unavailable: ‘Single land ownership. Discussion with landowner confirms that there are no plots within this development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period due to existing leaseholder agreements’. For the reasons set out in the earlier introduction, this is incorrect. Both buildings are likely to be available within the first half of the Plan Period. We therefore would request that GCSP reconsiders its assessment of potential for Buildings 270 and 296, which together could feasibly have redevelopment potential for 10,000 – 12,000m2 (subject to assessment, modelling and design). Given that the existing buildings currently offer approximately 5,500m2 GIA, it is considered that redevelopment could provide an increase of 4,500 – 6,500m2 GIA. We think it might also be useful for the table to refer to the recent consent (S/0630/15/FL) that was achieved on part of site KK (excluding Building 296), which would provide some context to what has previously been considered in terms of quantum, layout, density and scale.

Mostly yes

We broadly support the proposed use of SJIP for business-led development (see Annex 3). We would query the 35,100m2 of business space, shops and local services that is indicated in the plan for CSP. This figure appears to have been derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’ (‘TSDCA’). The Site falls within zone ‘R’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 4.33ha (gross), and that a ‘discussions with landowner confirms availability during the Plan period. Landowner has confirmed that the intention is to intensify existing land uses within this site and not to introduce residential development.’ Site R is identified as having potential capacity for 22,000m2 (NIA). It is not clear from the TSDCA plan which plots are considered for this, and we would welcome clarification from GCSP on this point. Vitrum is approximately 3,200m2 (GIA), and offers potential to increase floorspace significantly, by increasing its height to 6-storeys (max) and utilising a large element of its current car park.