Question 6

Nothing chosen

Question 6 and the relevant sections within the NECAAP need to relate back to the response to Question 4. Are the densities and the building heights proposed in direct response to the context of the immediate area and good place making; or are they as a result of an imbalanced proposition including an excess of office employment provision? At present it is not clear should the office employment provision reduce, would densities and heights reduce, or would additional housing be provided. If so, open space and community infrastructure needs would increase and therefore density may still reduce. At the heart of the new urban quarter should be good placemaking, and therefore building heights and densities should reflect the needs of the area in terms of environmental, social and economic benefits.

Nothing chosen

Please see our comments in relation to green infrastructure provision below. Natural England’s only other comment is that this should accord with local policy requirements such as Local Plan Policy 60 Tall buildings and the skyline in Cambridge to protect the local landscape and visual amenity.

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

6.1 Note the densities and heights of buildings. The site is one of the last brownfield sites to be developed in Cambridge, and is very well connected.

Nothing chosen

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

Nothing chosen

It is hard to see how the vision for NEC building heights fits in with the stated vision for Cambridge of a city surrounded by green space with a ‘necklace’ of villages. Aesthetically, looming tower blocks of 13 stories are completely out of character for Cambridge and could make the district square gloomy and dark. It has been calculated that the population density will be more than twice that of Inner London. This does not sit with claims that it will be a healthy and safe place to live. Living on a decommissioned sewage works seems a highly unattractive prospect. There is nothing in your evidence-based document library to show that this is safe practice.

Mostly yes

We would like to query why the plan takes a more cautious approach to heights than is recommended in the ‘Landscape Character and Visual Impact Appraisal January 2020’ (‘LCVIA’). For the area in which Building 140 is positioned, the LCVIA recommends ‘up to 6 storeys – 18m’ (Annex 5) and we think the plan in question 6 might follow this approach and simply state ‘up to 6 storeys’ rather than ‘typically 4 – 5 storeys, maximum 6 storeys’ (Annex 6). This change in reference would make it clear what the general upper height parameter should be (rather than the current format which implies that only in special and limited circumstances will 6 storeys be deemed acceptable), thereby creating a positively-worded policy that will help optimise economic development across the CSP.

Mostly yes

We would like to query why the plan takes a more cautious approach to heights than is recommended in the ‘Landscape Character and Visual Impact Appraisal January 2020’ (‘LCVIA’). For the area in which Buildings 270 and 296 are positioned, the LCVIA recommends ‘up to 6 storeys – 18m’ (Annex 5) and we think the plan in question 6 might follow this approach and simply state ‘up to 6 storeys’ rather than ‘typically 4 – 5 storeys, maximum 6 storeys’ (Annex 6). This would then step-down to 4 storeys on the Site’s edge near the A14, as recommended. This change in reference would make it clear what the general upper height parameter should be (rather than the current format which implies that only in special and limited circumstances will 6 storeys be deemed acceptable), thereby creating a positively-worded policy that will help optimise economic development across the CSP.

Mostly yes

We would like to query why the plan takes a more cautious approach to heights than is recommended in the ‘Landscape Character and Visual Impact Appraisal January 2020’ (‘LCVIA’). For the area in which Vitrum is positioned, the LCVIA recommends ‘up to 6 storeys – 18m’ (Annex 5) and we think the plan in question 6 might follow this approach and simply state ‘up to 6 storeys’ rather than ‘typically 4 – 5 storeys, maximum 6 storeys’ (Annex 6). This change in reference would make it clear what the general upper height parameter should be (rather than the current format which implies that only in special and limited circumstances will 6 storeys be deemed acceptable), thereby creating a positively-worded policy that will help optimise economic development across the SJIP.