We would like to see recognition that some natural and cultural visitor attractions have a carrying capacity beyond which they will be harmed. This is a common and recognised problem around the world as tourists damage the thing that they came to see. This can be direct harm, such as the wearing of physical fabric, or indirect harm, such as the impact of visitor facilities or sometimes the sheer number of people. What assessment has been carried out to understand the carrying capacity of some of Cambridge’s attractions, such as the historic centre and the River Cam? How does this carrying capacity relate to any increase in provision of visitor accommodation/facilities? Should there be a financial contribution from new accommodation development towards mitigating some of the impacts (eg supporting visitor management to disperse visitors from overcrowded locations)?

Regarding “New visitor attractions in Cambridge City Centre and South Cambridgeshire’s countryside will be supported subject to criteria such as sustainable travel.” This seems to contradict with “Proposals for new or extended tourist facilities and visitor attractions (excluding accommodation) in the countryside of South Cambridgeshire should utilise and enhance the area’s existing tourism assets, and show an identified need for a rural location.”. It is also unclear what would be classed as a visitor attraction, in theory this could include something like a new country park? The location of rural attractions may be determined by a natural or cultural asset, which can’t be located anywhere else. This might be located where there is no reliable public transport and we would be concerned that policy wording for visitor attraction did not conflict with policy wording regarding the delivery of green infrastructure.