Comment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
Representation ID: 59459
Received: 09/12/2021
Respondent: Susan Buckingham
In summary, we are fundamentally opposed to any kind of speculative growth in a region which (i) is particularly vulnerable to global heating; (ii) contains a precious biodiverse river system, which is already under threat; (iii) contains some of the country’s richest, most fertile agricultural land at a time of looming food insecurity; and (iv) produces more than its fair share of carbon nationally, and globally. Our position is that the two councils need to create a local plan which is consistent with these extreme pressures, while ensuring targeted housing and infrastructural provision for those currently disadvantaged by speculative growth and government cuts.
We recognise that this is a challenge, but rather than react to external pressures for development, Cambridge should aim to act as an example of what environmental and social (as well as economic) sustainability in the UK could and should be, that is appropriate for local conditions, and that draws on the best international comparisons.
The Cambridge Labour Party Environment Forum (CLEF) wishes to make a response to the Local Plan 1st Proposals document, but finds all the offered response formats inadequate. The consultation makes too many assumptions and demands a formulaic response to what is a complex and interconnected series of issues. CLEF is committed to addressing the global climate and biodiversity emergencies, and the local/regional water emergency, while addressing social and environmental
inequality and protecting people’s rights. These rights include, but are not limited to:
genuinely affordable homes; access to fairly remunerated, meaningful work; good
health and wellbeing, which requires clean air and water and access to green spaces;
and safe communities. These rights are not equally distributed across the city and
surrounding region and any local plan should be designed to address, rather than
exacerbate this.
The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) itself stresses the importance of achieving sustainable development through acknowledging the interdependence of economic, social and environmental dimensions. Our understanding is that economic drivers are far outweighing social and environmental dimensions in this 1st proposal of the local plan, thereby unbalancing these three elements so that they cannot be mutually supportive. The NPPF states that mitigation of climate change is achieved by making effective use of land in urban areas (this is not prioritized in the
local plan). Protecting areas and assets of particular importance (which we argue includes green belt land surrounding Cambridge, and the Cam chalk river system)
‘provides a strong reason for restricting overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area (our emphasis, NPPF, Sustainable Development 11b).
We start from the premise that the climate emergency we face is an existential threat globally and in the East Anglian region. This has become very clear this year
and the UK has declared its intention to submit a plan to COP27 in 2022 to stay within 1.5oC of warming compared with pre-industrial levels (on current
commitments the rate of global heating is 2.4oC, so clearly drastic measures are needed). Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Commission on Climate
reports that the region’s carbon emissions are already 25% higher per person than the national average and that we have less than 6 years left of our carbon budget to
2050, which should put a severe brake on further development. As a consequence, we should be reducing our carbon footprint faster and by more than the average per person rate. Instead Cambridge City Council and South Cambs District Council are
proposing above national rates of house building. New building and infrastructure is carbon intensive, with embodied CO2 accounting for 28% of its CO2 emissions over the first 50 years’ lifetime of a new house (Empty Homes Agency, 2008). Cement and steel – essential ingredients of buildings and infrastructure - contribute 16% to global CO2 emissions. Development on the scale proposed in the area is unsustainable, and
is therefore potentially open to legal challenge.
As well as challenging the argument for growth in a climate challenged region – and world - we also question its impact on biodiversity and the natural environment,
water/rivers, energy demand, and social and economic well-being for the most disadvantaged, as the following sections detail.