The Local Plan Big Vision says “We want Greater Cambridge to be a place where a big decrease in our climate impacts comes with a big increase in the quality of everyday life for all our communities.”

It is hard to disagree with this statement and I support the focus in the First Proposals on climate issues. However, whilst a decrease in climate impacts should, in and of itself, lead to an increase in the quality of everyday life (for example, through improvement in air quality), this will not lead to the all round improvement in quality of life that is required especially by Greater Cambridge’s poorest and most socially disadvantaged communities. I wonder whether the climate focus has become too singular. So, although one of the Plan’s aims is “wellbeing and social inclusion” I have not found anything in the Plan which seeks to explain the concrete steps Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (“GCSP”) envisages to achieve this. There seems to me to be more to it than “good growth”, although outside this area GCSP’s role may be mainly as a facilitator.

The Plan appears to estimate that the economic growth of Greater Cambridge will continue at the rate it has over recent years, without examining whether this will lead to a sustainable and more equal community or is otherwise a good thing. Secondly, there is limited explanation as to how GCSP sees the Local Plan as contributing to a solution to the acute problem of housing affordability that exists in Cambridge (for example, but not limited to, for key workers). The First Proposals do acknowledge that there needs to be the right mix of homes, including affordable housing. It is not clear whether this includes social housing. It must. Nor is it clear how the match between jobs growth and housing growth achieves such a solution, given that many of the sort of jobs Greater Cambridge’s businesses create bring new residents into the area. Thirdly, it is not at all obvious what community benefits or infrastructure GCSP sees as necessary to support the proposed level of growth or how they will be funded (for example, through section 106 contributions) and when they will be delivered. There is mention of an Infrastructure Development Plan (for example, in the “Infrastructure” topics paper), but I understand that this is under development and will be refined as the Local Plan is developed. Fourthly, Greater Cambridge needs to address the fact that it is seen as a social mobility cold-spot and find and implement appropriate solutions to this problem, including through its planning framework and decisions. Fifthly, whilst the Plan’s “wellbeing and social inclusion” aim acknowledges that GCSP expects a very significant increase in the age of Greater Cambridge’s population, it is not made explicit what implications this has, for example, for health infrastructure, including the region’s hospitals.

It is not clear enough in the First Proposals where major areas of employment are envisaged, by contrast with areas of housing growth (see figure 4 on page 22 of the First Proposals). This is an important omission, given that, for example, East West Rail’s preferred southern approach is posited upon major housing growth to the south of Cambridge and a belief that that is where Greater Cambridge’s major employment centres are and will continue to be.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Commission on Climate’s October 2021 Final Report was published very shortly before the First Proposals consultation. I have mentioned one of its recommendations below, but have no doubt that some of its findings will be relevant to future development of the Plan.