BG/GI: Green infrastructure

I strongly support the increase in green infrastructure, which seems wholly beneficial, especially in terms of creating wildlife and walking corridors. All the items on the list in the policy outline are of interest.
However, there are questions around how this will be embedded and upheld within the planning process. For example, current plans for the Northeast Cambridge development fall short of Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, which suggest provision of 100 hectares of green space for a development of this size, even if current plans meet Cambridge Local Plan Standards.
The decision NOT to “restrict development within respective green infrastructure strategic initiative areas” is understandable, but it seems to leave a lot of ‘wiggle room’ for allowing development which could overwhelm creation of this new green infrastructure. How will the councils “ensure that design development in these initiative areas contributes to delivering long-term priorities”? This is very vague language in terms of what will be permitted and the ambition for these ‘priority initiatives.
As with policy BG/BG, the worry is that developers will opt to deliver off-site benefits. How can we be sure that contributions secured for off-site net gain will “allow us to invest in these projects and not somewhere further afield?

Any development at S/CBC/A would be detrimental to the well-being of existing Queen Edith’s residents.

This policy should protect Nine Wells Nature Reserve, which is already under stress and being gradually degraded. This is before full development of S/CBC/M15, let alone development on S/CBC/E/2. The field between NWNR and and the railway line should be allocated for its protection and enhancement.

Couldn’t see detail of maps here even when expanded.
Essential that policies and mapping here identify the importance of the green infrastructure provided by the network of linked green spaces including college playing fields in West Cambridge which are unique to the setting of the city for the green wildlife corridor (‘linked habitats”)they provide between the rural area beyond the M11 via sites such as Adams Road Bird Sanctuary to the Backs. Policies needed particular wording to ‘Reinforce and enhance landscape and townscape’ in order to reflect this.

We think the Green infrastructure is a good idea, especially in terms of creating wildlife corridors. How does the plan meet Natural England's Accessible Greenspace Standards in terms of 100 hectares of greenspace for (for example) the proposed development at Northeast Cambridge?

There is no absolute standard for measurement or achieved performance of the developments

The general principle of enhancing the existing green infrastructure is supported but clarity is required regarding the proposed relocation of the Waste Water treatment Works (dependency for proposed Policy S/NEC) to the green belt location which appears to conflict with Area 4, Enhancement of the Eastern Fens.

Existing green infrastructures around Babraham (currently unlinked) need to be more ecologically coherent and given greater protection for biodiversity and ecological character.

This policy needs greater coherence overall as proposals and sites are not linked together by an overarching policy that makes them ecologically contiguous.

No 3) Gog magog should extend to A11 to protect valuable riparian forest and flood plain habitats, but should also include the river (i.e. link with proposal no1, another area where the proposals are not joined up sufficiently), as the Granta tributary here is over abstracted and being managed in a peicemeal fashion by landowners.

I support John Meed’s suggestions for strengthening the objectives of this policy. His suggestions are in the attached document.
Any development at S/CBC/A would be detrimental to the well-being of existing Queen Edith’s residents.
This policy should protect Nine Wells Nature Reserve, which is already under stress and being gradually degraded. This is before full development of S/CBC/M15, let alone development on S/CBC/E/2. The field between NWNR and and the railway line should be allocated for its protection and enhancement.

Support

Marshall is supportive of ambitious targets for green infrastructure provision within developments. As detailed in the response above related to biodiversity, Marshall is developing ambitious plans to accommodate green infrastructure that provides a high value biodiversity resource.

However, Marshall also recognises that biodiversity enhancement is only one part of the green infrastructure solution and therefore proposes to make green infrastructure multi-functional. The evolving proposals for Cambridge East support the inclusion of other ecosystem services including in particular: natural water management including sustainable drainage and natural filtration beds; carbon sequestration through new tree planting and other habitat and soil enhancement on-site and off-site; urban cooling; food growing; air quality amelioration; soundscaping; improving landscape character; urban greening; provision of formal and informal recreational space; and others. These meet well the themes of the GCSP as set out in the Green Infrastructure Recommendations Report.

In addition, Marshall is keen that Cambridge East helps support a further spatial theme: enhancement of the eastern fens, which is identified in the same GI Recommendations Report. Marshall is keen to discuss with the GCSP whether, for Cambridge East, any off-site (or on-site, if development was to occur east of Airport Way) BNG that may be sought, or carbon sequestration initiative, could also lead to helping support meeting of the key objectives, which include creating wildlife corridors and helping reduce negative impact from access, that relate to this spatial theme. Given the achievement of these objectives would require works being undertaken on land owned by others we would be keen to understand, and support the development if necessary, of a process that allows this to occur through development contributions.

Finally Marshall would welcome the Local Plan requiring all, or at least developments of a significant scale, to be required to seek green infrastructure accreditation, for example through the Building with Nature scheme.

We support the policy intention for development proposals to include green infrastructure, providing benefits for people, wildlife and planet by
- Reinforcing and enhancing landscape and townscape
- Supporting delivery of biodiversity net gain, and connecting where appropriate to the wider ecological network
- Promoting healthy living
- Protecting and enhancing the water environment.
- Enhancing access and connectivity
- Providing environmental enhancement; and
- Supporting climate mitigation and adaptation.

Please see attached representation

The overall intent and policy direction of this policy is welcomed and supported. The need for development plans to take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure is of critical importance. This objective is a core part of the ‘Cambridge Nature Network’ which is supported by both South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City Councils and we are pleased that this document has also been referred to. We also agree that green infrastructure initiatives must be included in the development plan rather than a supplementary planning document to provide the strongest possible support.

It is noted that views are sought on the adoption of standards for the provision of green infrastructure such as those set out in ‘Building with Nature’. Adoption of a set of key objectives and principles for the provision of green infrastructure is welcome - although the detail of theses would need careful consideration. As we commented with regard to policy BG/BG, the protection of existing sites must be the first priority. As the explanatory text for standard 11 (Delivers Wildlife Enhancement) of the Building with Nature document notes:

‘This standard emphasises the requirement to follow the Mitigation Hierarchy and create
Net Positive benefits for wildlife. The standard reiterates the need to protect any existing ecological assets as a necessary first step in the development process.’

Any application of standards should also, of course, not simply be used as a green ‘tick list’ or applied to try and make developments acceptable when these would cause permanent harm (or risk of harm) to important biodiversity sites or interests.

We strongly agree that “Opportunity Mapping has identified a number of strategic green infrastructure initiatives which have the potential to enhance the existing network. This policy will require all new development to help deliver or contribute to support delivery of the green infrastructure strategic initiative objectives. Contributions will include the establishment, enhancement and the on-going management costs.” In our research for the Cambridge Nature Network (http://cambridgenaturenetwork.org/) we identified that the creation of new accessible green space in Cambridgeshire has not kept pace with the increase in population over the past 20 years and this has been one of the main drivers of recreational impact on wildlife sites. In addition, many green space sites in Cambridgeshire are wetlands, meaning that although they might cover a large area, the amount of land that can actually be used by the public is often small or limited to paths. Unlike other counties Cambridgeshire does not have large areas of public access woodlands, downland/moorland/heathland or coastline and as a consequence there is poor access to countryside. Our research also identified that larger scale development (such as Cambourne) were providing larger areas of new greenspace but smaller developments were not and therefore it is these that are contributing most towards the problem as they have made up around 50% of the development in Cambridgeshire over the past 20 years. If the Local Plan is to be sustainable (ie not increase recreational impacts more than has already occurred) then ALL new development will need to make a contribution towards creating new strategic greenspace (if none is created through the development). The Local Plan should set out how these contributions are to be collected and the amount that would be required per person. We refer you to the submission by the s106 Officer for South Cambridgeshire District Council who has calculated that this should be £498 per dwelling.
We have noted the Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping Final Report (2021). We have been trying to arrange a meeting with officers to discuss this and will submit additional comments once we have been able to do so.

The map shows the Land at St Peter’s Street as being within the proposed Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor (WGMGIC) (8). Paragraph 175 of the NPPF 2021 reinforces a strategic approach to green infrastructure and paragraph 186 of the NPPF 2021 sets out this should be done. However, the WGMGIC covers a large area of land and it is considered this corridor should be focused on the large strategic developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield or major development as the purposes of the policy should be strategic in nature and is therefore unreasonable to cover the whole of Caxton.

TMLC supports the objective to enhance the existing green infrastructure network and address how development proposals can link in with green infrastructure. The aim for all development proposals to include green infrastructure is beneficial for the people of Greater Cambridge.

When considering the proposed site allocation ‘Trumpington South’, the site is already surrounded by extensive green infrastructure, this includes the 150 acre Trumpington Meadows Country Park (Delivered by TMLC in partnership with the Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire & Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust) and the River Cam river corridor, both located immediately to the North West of the site. Indeed, the Trumpington South proposals include a potential expansion of these wildlife rich ‘green lungs’ for the City by a further 33%. The management of this open space could be integrated with the successful operation of the Country Park; now a proven community asset delivered and managed for 10 years by TMLC.

Green infrastructure is a key part of a successful spatial strategy. The identification of Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiatives is welcome, as is the statement in the First Proposals that “Explicitly identifying these initiatives and their objectives in the Local Plan will not restrict development in the broad areas they cover.” Engagement with landowners in the identified areas as the initiative develops will also be essential as to as the initiative develops

The policy should recognise that some sites, given locational constraints, especially within the City, may not be able to deliver the enhancements envisaged by the policy direction, and as such, may not be viable.

The RSPB support this policy direction, and we are pleased to see that our Ouse Valley reserves, where we have significant green infrastructure ambitions, are included in the ‘Great Ouse Fenland Arc’ priority area. As a potential GI provider, we have struggled to gain contributions from developments in the past, notably from the first phases of Northstowe which is in close proximity to and connected by public transport to our Fen Drayton Lakes site. We will therefore be very keen to ensure there are clear requirements and standards set out in this policy which will enable new development to make a significant contribution to the Greater Cambridge strategic GI initiatives.

We feel that there is an obvious connection between provision of strategic GI and its proximity and transport connectivity to new development, and we believe this should influence which initiatives are supported by a particular development (as an example, various development sites will be in proximity to our Fen Drayton Lakes site, or directly connected via the guided busway). We would therefore like to see policy wording which makes this connection.

We fully support that GI contributions should go towards the establishment, enhancement and on-going management costs, as this latter requirement is often overlooked.

The adoption of a green infrastructure standard should be a recommendation, not a requirement. Developments should not be opposed where all reasonable steps have been taken to protect and incorporate green infrastructure.

Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in a supplementary planning document (SPD).

You are contradicting your green infrastructure policy by allowing the CWWTP to be rebuilt on Area 4 (see fig 54) an area that is intended to be an enhancement of the Eastern Fens. And part of the Wicken Fen Vision. An industrial development in this area will also compromise the River Cam corridor.

Under this policy Land South of Newington, Willingham is located within the Great Ouse Fenland Arc ‘strategic green infrastructure initiative’. The current suggestion under the policy wording is that ‘all new development’ will be required to ‘help deliver or contribute to support delivery of the green infrastructure strategic initiative objectives. Contributions will include the establishment, enhancement and the on-going management costs.’ The wording of the policy is likely to conflict with paragraph 57 of the NPPF tests for planning obligations, particularly for small scale developments. It would be more appropriate for this wording to be amended to reference major developments.

Cambourne Town Council considers the section will achieve the aim of the plan and these should be supported. The importance of the existing green space and biodiversity in Cambourne should be stressed especially as Cambourne is a part of the Western gateway multifunctional green infrastructure corridor.

Consider how to work with private landowners to create more food growing spaces in central Cambridge locations (where allotment demand is greatest), bearing in mind that two of the colleges already provide small allotment sites on the outskirts of the city.

The National Trust supports the principle of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiatives and a policy which requires the delivery of on-site greenspace within new developments.

We are disappointed that the Wicken Fen Vision is not referenced in the First Proposals document. We are strongly of the opinion that the 'Enhancement of the Eastern Fens' initiative should be extended to include all land included within the Wicken Fen vision. This is one of the key delivery programmes for the Council's adopted Natural Cambridgeshire 'doubling nature' vision. Green infrastructure is a cross boundary issue and initiatives should not stop at local authority boundaries. We would expect to see the Wicken Fen Vision Area referenced in that context. We acknowledge that its delivery would require partnership working with the National Trust, a neighbouring local authority and other stakeholders. By thinking across boundaries, we can create a network of greenspaces that includes the Wicken Fen Vision, the Cambridge Green Belt and a green corridor that extends through the existing airport site connecting with Coldham’s Common. On its 125th anniversary in January 2020, the National Trust committed to enhancing urban green spaces and linking access to countryside to create 20 green corridors (by 2030). One of these identified as Wicken Fen to Cambridge. We see Greater Cambridge as an ideal location to deliver this ambitious vision and are keen to engage with interested partners, and hope that the Local Plan can help make this happen.

The National Trust's Wimpole Estate falls within the Western Gateway and two pollinator corridors. We would welcome discussions moving forwards about working together to deliver greater connectivity to these spaces. We also fulfil 11, 13 and 14 of the dispersed green infrastructure initiatives and are keen to engage with partners to see how we could deliver more.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the First Proposals Public Consultation for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully considered at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Cambridge is a beautiful, compact and historic city. It is also an historic seat of learning with a very high concentration of highly graded heritage assets. Much of the city is covered by Conservation Area status. The river corridor, green fingers and open spaces, with cows grazing in meadows even at the heart of the city, shape the character of the townscape and landscape.

Although a relatively flat landscape, the elevated positions to the west and south of the Cambridge afford important views across the city skyline, which is one of extensive tree cover and emerging spires. The flatter Fens landscape to the north and east provides very long-distance views of the City and the big east Anglian skies.

The surrounding rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire comprises over 100 villages, each with their own unique character and heritage. New settlements are an important feature of the district, with their own special identity and are growing rapidly.

We recognise the area faces intense pressure for growth, driven by both the economic success and the attractiveness of the area, in large part a consequence of

its rich architectural and cultural heritage. This growth must be carefully managed to ensure that the very things that contribute to its success are not harmed in the process.

It is for this reason that Historic England is keen to ensure that the emerging plan gives full consideration to the historic environment, both in the choice of site allocations and policy criteria for sites, as well as through a robust and clear suite of historic environment and other policies that seek to both protect but also enhance the historic environment.

We have reviewed the Draft Plan and consultation material with a view to providing advice on heritage matters.

As a general comment, Historic England welcomes emerging plan and work undertaken to date. We have however identified below some of the key issues to be addressed in progressing the next iteration of the Plan: This should be read in conjunction with Appendix A which provides more detailed comments on these and other more minor issues.

a) Site Assessment and the need for Heritage Impact Assessments

We are pleased to note that a degree of site assessment has already been undertaken in relation to the historic environment. These are set out in the HELAA Report, especially Appendix 4.

To date, the assessment of sites is fairly high level and brief but provides a useful starting point, in particular helping to identify immediate showstoppers. We note that many of the sites are shown as amber.

As we have discussed previously, the need for further assessment of heritage in terms of significance, impact on that significance, potential mitigation and enhancements etc will be needed for the site allocations. There is currently an insufficient evidence base in this regard. We therefore welcome your commitment to undertake Heritage Impact Assessments for site allocations. These should be prepared prior to the next draft of the Local Plan.

This further assessment, known as Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should follow the 5 step methodology set out in out in our advice note, HEAN 3 on Site Allocations in Local Plans https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/.

HIAs should be proportionate (both to the scale of the site and the assets affected). All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment

impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or inter-visibility with, a potential site.

Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.

Impacts on significance are not just based on distance or visual impacts, and assessment requires a careful judgment based on site visits and the available evidence base. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:

• Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
• Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
• Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
• Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
• Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
• Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

The HIAs should assess the suitability of each area for development and the impact on the historic environment. Should the HIA conclude that development in the area could be acceptable and the site be allocated, the findings of the HIA should inform the Local Plan policy including development criteria and a strategy diagram which expresses the development criteria in diagrammatic form.

Which sites require HIA?

Ideally all sites should have an HIA, albeit proportionate to the site and heritage sensitivities.

For existing allocations being carried forward into this Local Plan, the HIA is less about the principle of development (that has already been established through previous plan allocation) and more about exploring capacity, height, density and any heritage mitigation and enhancement opportunities so that these can then be

included in the updated policy wording.

For new allocations, the HIA will be a more holistic view and consider both the principle of development as well as the other matters identified above.

b) Policy Wording for sites

If, having completed the heritage impact assessments, it is concluded that a site is suitable for allocation, we would remind you to include appropriate policy criteria for the historic environment in the policy. Please refer to the advice we give on policy wording in the attached table.

It can be helpful to refer to an HIA in the policy wording. Concept diagrams can also be useful to include in the plan to illustrate key site considerations/ recommendations.

c) Edge of Cambridge sites

The Plan proposes carrying forward a number of partially built out allocations on the edge of the City as well as some minor extensions to these. The Plan also proposes revisiting the dwelling capacity/density for some of these sites e.g. Eddington.

Proposals for North East Cambridge are very high density and also quite tall.

The Plan also includes a very large new allocation at East Cambridge (previously released from the Green Belt and allocated in the 2006 Plan, although not in the 2018 Plan). The number of dwellings now being proposed represents a significant increase in density from the 2006 Plan.

We have some concerns regarding these densities and heights on edge of Cambridge sites. Development at very high densities/heights and the potential impact on the overall setting of this historic city. HIAs should give careful consideration to the issue of development and site capacity and height – we will be looking for evidence in this regard.

d) Historic Environment Policy

We welcome your intention to include a policy for the Historic Environment. This should cover both designated and non-designated heritage assets. Policy wording should be in line with the NPPF but we are also looking for a local flavour.

Policies should be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the area and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation.

You should also include a policy for Heritage at Risk and a policy for historic shopfronts. For further detail see Appendix A.

e) Design Policy

We welcome the proposals for a design policy on the plan. We note that this policy is also intended to address tall buildings. We are concerned that the policy might become overly long and detailed, given it is covering such a wide and important range of issues and wonder whether separating out tall buildings into a separate policy might be helpful?

f) Tall Buildings Study and Policy

Related to the above, given the growth pressures that we would anticipate Cambridge is likely to experience over the coming years, we are pleased to see that the matter of Tall buildings and the skyline will be addressed in policy.

We had understood that you were commissioning a study in relation to tall buildings and the skyline policy. Is this still proposed to inform the policy in the next draft of the Local Plan?

See our advice note HEAN 4 and the consultation draft of HEAN 4. Any policy should indicate what considerations are needed for taller buildings, where buildings may or may not be appropriate etc. and in particular consider in the impact on the historic environment.

We broadly welcome policy 60 and Appendix F of the 2018 Cambridge City Local Plan. However, we consider that this could be further supplemented to indicate which areas may or may not be suited to taller buildings. Our advice note in relation to tall buildings provides further guidance in this respect

We have been having discussions with the team preparing The North East Area Action Plan in relation to tall buildings studies and have provided a detailed advice letter in that regard. Please refer to our advice letters in relation to NEA Action Plan and tall buildings for further information on our position.

g) Other Supporting Evidence

We welcome the preparation of the HELAA although consider that further, more detailed evidence is needed in relation to heritage impact and so welcome your intention to prepare HIAs for site allocations.

We broadly welcome the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment including the baseline study of the setting of Cambridge. However, we have expressed some concerns regarding some aspects of this baseline, in particular the weighting given to some of the key characteristics and aspects of setting of Cambridge including views. Further detail is given in Appendix A.

We welcome the evidence in relation to landscape character assessment. We do however continue to suggest that it would also be helpful to commission Historic Landscape Characterisation work for inform this Plan and future growth in the area.

We welcome the production of the Sustainability Appraisal. We would comment however that since many of the site allocations are grouping together under particular policies, the different impacts for individual sites are not always drawn out in the assessment tables – this sometimes has the effect of neutralising the scoring.

Historic England – Ox Cam research work

Historic England has commissioned consultants to undertake some work looking at development in the OxCam Arc. ‘Measuring Impact: Managing Change’ looks at the question, ‘How should the form of growth in the Oxford-Cambridge arc positively respond to the Historic Environment’. This research is due to report in the next few months and we hope to be able to share this with you at that time as it may provide useful evidence to inform your Local Plan work.

Other comments

In preparation of the forthcoming Greater Cambridge Local Plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, archaeologists and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues. Where there are various options proposed for a settlement, identification of heritage issues for a particular

allocation does not automatically correspond to the support for inclusion of the alternative sites, given we have not been able to assess all of the sites.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

We trust that these comments are helpful to you in developing the Local Plan. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We suggest it might be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss our comments and, in particular, heritage impact assessments and policy wording for site allocations.
Please feel free to suggest some dates.

I have asked Caldecote Parish Councillors to comment upon the emerging Local Plan.
There are no significant objections not the proposed sites.
Comments included were:
• Installation of charging points
• Bicycle lane and green walkways
• Adequate community facilities
• Access to mental health care
• Limited rural village development
• Small commercial/retail premises in rural communities
• Communication infrastructure (Fibre)
• Water consumption and the use of grey water
• Green space and more diversity
• Farming community to consulted.

This is a summary of comments received.

I have asked Caldecote Parish Councillors to comment upon the emerging Local Plan.
There are no significant objections not the proposed sites.
Comments included were:
• Installation of charging points
• Bicycle lane and green walkways
• Adequate community facilities
• Access to mental health care
• Limited rural village development
• Small commercial/retail premises in rural communities
• Communication infrastructure (Fibre)
• Water consumption and the use of grey water
• Green space and more diversity
• Farming community to consulted.

This is a summary of comments received.

Compendium of Environment Agency Comments

Vision and aims
The vision on page 20 is positive bringing to the forefront decreasing climate impacts, minimising carbon emissions, increasing nature, wildlife and green spaces. Reflecting on the paragraph on page 18, you outline the aim for the Local Plan is simple: to ensure sustainable development. This means planning for homes, jobs and supporting infrastructure in the right places, alongside protecting and enhancing the environment. We recommend the vision reflects this objective of ‘sustainable development.’ For example, we suggest the following revision as follows: New development must be sustainable: minimise carbon emissions and reliance on the private car; create thriving neighbourhoods with the variety of jobs and homes we need; increase nature, wildlife and green spaces; and safeguard our unique heritage and landscapes. This will align closely to the aims of the NPPF (paragraphs 7 and 8) and also demonstrate the importance of this for Greater Cambridge given the unique challenges and opportunities the area faces.

We support the references within the aims to highest achievable standard for water use and resilient to current and future climate risks. The biodiversity and green spaces aim is also positive in its focus on improving the network of habitats and ensuring development leaves the natural environment better than it was before. All these aims will help GC achieve the stated vision and it’s important that the interrelationship and interdependencies between these aims are recognised. Recognising the interdependencies will strengthen and ultimately achieve better outcomes for GC. One example is the ecological health and water quality of rivers and water dependant habitats (e.g. wetlands) is also dependent on the availability of water in addition to the contribution developments will make in creating and enhancing habitats and green space. Healthier rivers and water dependant habitats will in turn restore nature, improve the health and wellbeing of communities and have economic benefits. Serving the environment in tandem with growing communities is mutually beneficial and secures long-term resilience. This also reflects the paragraph 153 of the NPPF: ‘plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes’ etc.

S/DS Development Strategy
We welcome the section on ‘Ensuring a deliverable plan – water supply’ on pages 41 and 42, which recognises this as a significant issue for the Local Plan. We remain genuinely concerned about whether the growth proposed (48,800 new homes inclusive of 10% buffer and 37,200 from previous plans) can be sustainable without causing further deterioration to the water environment. We understand the regional and water company water resource planning is still ongoing and the next version of the IWMS Detailed WCS will be updated as these plans come to fruition. We offer our support to work collaboratively with all the parties involved.

Current levels of abstraction (not just in Cambridge) are causing environmental effects. Increase in usage within existing licenced volumes will increase the pressure on a system that is already failing some environmental targets. The Anglian River Basin Management Plan shows many waterbodies do not have the flow required to support the ecology. Abstraction licencing reductions are likely to reduce the supplies available to water companies in our efforts to prevent deterioration of the water environment. As the plan and evidence base progresses it will need to be clearly demonstrated that the water companies plans can meet the needs of growth without causing deterioration.

As a best case scenario the strategic water infrastructure (new Fenland reservoir) would be available from the mid-2030s and its foreseeable this could be later i.e. the 2040s. It is the short to medium term period coinciding with the majority of the plan period for which rapid and viable interim solutions are needed. There is currently uncertainty about whether water supplies can be provided (both supply and demand management) in a way that is both sustainable and sufficient for the proposed growth over the plan period.

We support the idea of development limited to levels that can be supported by a sustainable water supply (phased delivery) until the time the strategic infrastructure is in place, though we are mindful this may lead to heavily back loaded delivery. If the Council approaches neighbouring local planning authorities as you already recognise it is likely they will have similar issues, though some may have more options for interim solutions. This highlights the importance of cooperating across planning boundaries and growth plans being considered in the context of the combined pressure on water supplies at a regional scale. As previously mentioned, 2050 may be a more appropriate end date for the plan period given the challenges being faced which in reality require a longer lead in time to support development, e.g. strategic water resources infrastructure, climate change resilience, etc. This would also align with paragraph 153 of the NPPF ‘plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes’ etc.

Integrated Water Management Study – Outline Water Cycle Strategy
The WCS will rely on further evidence coming forward from both regional and water company water resource plans. The WCS will need to demonstrate that feasible and deliverable mitigation measures are available for the interim period until new strategic water resources options will come online.

As noted, the WCS will need to base its assessment on the forthcoming water resource plans (WRMP24) rather than the existing, as this will have a more accurate picture of the water resources situation taking into account abstraction licence reductions. Both Cambridge Water and Anglian Water are likely to require further sustainability reductions in PR24. This could mean some or all of the current water surplus’s (available headroom) are no longer available for transfer.

The reliance on demand management options is currently high-level. These will require assessment of feasibility, effectiveness and how implementation will be monitored and measured corrected if they are not working.

In facing what is collectively a significant challenge we offer our support to work collaboratively with the interested parties ahead (and beyond) the next consultation in 2022.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
We note the intention of the policy is to set out the place-making vision and a robust planning framework for the comprehensive development of this site. There are both environmental risks and opportunities to developing this site sustainably. Ensuring sustainable water supplies, improving water quality and the effective remediation of land contamination will be key considerations in achieving this. The proposed policy direction anticipates the site (once developed in full, which will extend beyond the Local Plan period of 2041) will deliver 8,350 new homes. The IWMS Detailed WCS will need to provide evidence the new homes (and employment) can be sustainably supplied with water in time for the development phases.

The existing site at Fen Road, Chesterton continues to be a source of ongoing local water quality and environmental health problems due to inadequate foul drainage provision. There have been a number of reports of foul sewage from the site discharging into the River Cam, causing chronic on-going pollution. The relocation of the existing Milton sewage works and extensive redevelopment of North East Cambridge presents the opportunity to incorporate mains drainage connection into the Fen Road site.

Policy S/NS: Existing new settlements
With regard to the existing allocations NS/3 and SS/5 Northstowe, we are investigating flood risk management options to reduce the risk of flooding in Oakington. This will take account of measures looking to attenuate water upstream (on the upper reaches of Oakington Brook and as part of the Northstowe development), potential channel modifications and natural flood management. We note that early phases of Northstowe are under construction. We recommend the emerging policies include this as an opportunity both in terms of delivering flood risk management measures or securing financial contributions towards this project.

CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments
We support stringent water efficiency in water stressed areas. We recommend reviewing the document The State of the Environment: Water Resources (2018) prepared by the Environment Agency. This document outlines the challenges we now face summarised as follows. Water supply (resource) is under increasing pressure from population growth, land use change, and climate change (including hotter weather increasing evaporation, less rainfall in summer, and intense rainfall events not recharging aquifers efficiently). Without increasing our supply, reducing demand, and cutting down on wastage many areas will face significant deficits by 2050, if not sooner. If not addressed this represents an immediate and measurable blocker to future growth. We need to consider development in the context of available water resources, balancing economic growth with protecting and enhancing the water environment. We will need to ensure that there is enough water for both people and the environment, that water is used efficiently, that water is protected as a precious resource, and that wastewater is treated efficiently to cut associated carbon emissions.

We agree the evidence of the water resources situation in Greater Cambridge justifies the tighter standard of 80 litres/person/day for housing. The risk of this standard not being met is an increase in abstraction risking deterioration of associated water bodies. As page 150 recognises (with reference to the Deregulation Act 2015) GC Council will need to be satisfied that this standard can be legally and practically implemented in the context of current legislation (Water Industry and Development Industry), national policy and building regulations. This affects the practical implementation of this policy. It would need to be determined the evidence/metric applicants would be expected to submit to demonstrate this standard has been achieved. It would also need to be evidenced how the policy standards would be implemented, and how this would be monitored to ensure the policy is effective.

A positive standard is proposed for non-residential development, which we support. Water neutrality should also be explored, noting the references made to water reuse and offsetting.

The Integrated Water Management Study (IWMS) states that 80 litres/person/day is achievable by making full use of water efficient fixtures and fittings, and also water re-use measures on site including surface water and rainwater harvesting, and grey water recycling. It comments that the cost effectiveness improves with the scale of the project, and that a site-wide system is preferable to smaller installations.

Currently the policy direction has a caveat of ‘unless demonstrated impracticable.’ This should be explored further in the WCS so the Council has clear guidance on the circumstances where achieving this standard would be impracticable. This will help ensure planning applications can be fairly and reasonably assessed. This will also help ensure the overall goal of the policy is not weakened or undermined. Similarly this evidence needs to be drawn out for the non-residential standard. The WCS should also set out the backstop position should the standard of 80 litres/person/day be practicably unachievable.

Although we support water efficiency measures in new development, we consider that the plan is currently unlikely to achieve the kinds of reductions in demand needed to keep the proposed levels of growth within sustainable levels. As noted with policy S/DS, the evidence base (IWMS Detailed WCS) will need to demonstrate how the water companies’ plans can meet the needs of growth without causing unsustainable abstraction and associated deterioration. We offer our support to work on this collaboratively with the interested parties both ahead of the next consultation in 2022 and beyond.

Page 150 references the Shared regional principles for protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. We recommend this is also considered and referenced elsewhere in the plan with regards to net zero, net gain, tree cover and strategic resource infrastructure provision.

CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
The proposed policy intends to set out how the design of developments should take account of our changing climate, for example, extreme weather events including flash flooding. We welcome the reference (p. 152/153) to site wide approaches to reduce climate risks, including sustainable drainage systems as part of landscape design, urban greening, increased tree canopy cover and integrating green spaces into new developments. In the context of flooding and climate change it would also be appropriate to reference flood resistance and resilience measures (see PPG: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk and-coastal-change#Flood-resilience-and-flood-resistance). Site wide approaches should also include adaptive measures such as setting a development away from a river so it is easier to improve flood defences in the future. In addition, making space for water to flood and be stored will be critical to long term adaptation. Planning to avoid future flood risk is as much about creating storage or contributing to nature based flood risk reduction measures (e.g. creating wetland habitats) as it is avoiding flooding to new properties.

In shaping this policy, we recommend GC Council also consider the ADEPT local authority guidance on preparing for a changing climate (2019) and the new TCPA The Climate Crisis, A Guide for Local Authorities on Planning for Climate Change (October 2021).

The Fens Baseline Report (available at https://www.ada.org.uk/knowledge/future-fens/) indicates that rising sea levels to 2115 will mean water will not drain by gravity to the sea, requiring the pumping of vast quantities of water. The carbon and engineering implications of this are significant but not yet calculated. There is a compelling case for surface water to infiltrate into permeable ground ensuring that water resources are not depleted of water. In areas of less permeable geology, net gains in surface water attenuation and re-use of the water as ‘green water’ in homes, businesses or agriculture has been considered through this study.

CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management
We welcome the inclusion of Policy CC/FM. We agree a policy that responds to the local water management issues is needed. As climate change will intensify the existing pressures on water availability, water quality, drainage and flood risk an integrated approach to water management will be essential. As stated this should include a robust approach to drainage and water management. The proposed policy direction is a good starting point but given the water challenges (our comments to Policy S/DS) it should strive to secure both mitigation and betterment through growth.

The local policy approach should be informed by the IWMS Water Cycle Studies, the Level 1 SFRA and other relevant strategies. We would expect to see the policy content evolve with the following considerations:

1) Though the policy direction indicates that policies will require that the risk of flooding is not increased elsewhere, it should seek to secure betterment and reduce flood risk overall, wherever possible, as part of GC’s strategy to adapt to climate change. This aligns with our previous comment that making space for water to flood and be stored will be critical to long-term adaptation. Floodplain storage, natural flood management and surface water attenuation are all measures that will contribute. Protection of potential flood storage land (including functional floodplain/Flood Zone 3b) and financial contributions towards flood risk schemes could also benefit communities at risk of flooding are also much needed options. Although many sites are located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding from rivers) there are also many sites located on the fringes of Flood Zones 2 and 3 meaning these are at risk of reducing (potentially eliminating) future flood storage options for adapting to climate change. In the background, urban creep and small infill developments which do not attenuate for surface water impact drainage systems and watercourses downstream. In planning to manage future flood risk in GC, creating extra storage to allow space for flood waters is a vital element of that plan.

2) We expect the policy to include provision for water supply and waste water infrastructure, ensuring water quality and treating and re-using waste water. We recommend that the provisions of Policy CC/7, ‘Water Quality’, of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 are considered and brought forward into the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Site policies may also need to include specific infrastructure requirements. These should become apparent, and be informed by, assessments carried out in the IWMS Detailed Water Cycle Study.

3) There needs to be a policy approach that recognises a clear integration encompassing water resources, water quality, flood risk and recognising the role of green infrastructure. Although the value of green infrastructure and river corridors is recognised in policy BG/GI and BG/RC, it is worthwhile including it as part of the integrated water management policy. The Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping Study touches upon this relationship under the Water Storage bullet as follows: Our rivers are a source of flood risk. Restoration of natural flood plains where practicable and provision of green infrastructure can help reduce flood risk along the rivers itself and beyond. Wet woodland will self set and grow where conditions are right and management allows. Providing the right conditions for trees to grow in appropriate locations in river corridors can support flood risk mitigation and biodiversity.

Integrated Water Management Study – Outline Water Cycle Strategy (WCS)
For water quality we welcome that the Outline WCS has been amended based on our previous feedback. However a number of issues raised remain unresolved which we can expand upon in a more detailed response to the Council’s consultants. Some of the information presented does not represent the proper ‘baseline’ for subsequent assessments and the extent of the challenge of delivering the quantum of growth proposed in the Local Plan. For example, 2019 WFD classification data is presented but waterbody objectives are from 2015, also the information in chapter 6 does not take account of river quality improvements delivered by AMP6 or AMP7 schemes. The identified assessment methods need to be sufficiently robust, and potential mitigation actions will need to be shown to be viable. The Detailed WCS will need to provide evidence to demonstrate the delivery of foul drainage provision can be provided whilst protecting water quality of rivers.

Climate change topic paper (IWMS Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment)
We have reviewed the Level 1 SFRA. The majority of sites are in fluvial Flood Zone 1 with a proportion of sites with partial Flood Zone 2 and 3 either within the site boundaries or close to boundaries. Surface water flood risk also affect most of the sites to a limited or greater extent. Flood risk and climate change adaptation is an important consideration of the Local Plan in view of the predicted impacts of climate change on flood risk. Page 39 of the Climate Change Topic Paper states that the Level 1 SFRA (2021) has been used to support the selection of development sites through the application of the Sequential Test. This statement within the topic paper is helpful, however, it does need to be more obviously demonstrated how the Sequential Test and sequential approach to all forms of flooding has been applied. The Planning Practice Guidance advises a number of options for this including a standalone report, Sustainability Appraisal commentary, etc. This will need to be produced in time for the next draft plan consultation so it is clear how the test has been applied and demonstrated.

Page 42 explains that where necessary a Level 2 SFRA of sites in the draft plan will be carried out to ensure that designs and capacity fully reflect management of flood issues. We think that a Level 2 SFRA is necessary particularly for those sites located on the fringes of Flood Zones 2 and 3, or partially within those zones. In predominantly flat or fenland areas, breaches in flood defences can cause flooding in Flood Zone 1 due to the concentration of floodwater in one part of the floodplain, for example, the Waterbeach New Town allocation. Some sites have unmapped ordinary watercourses running alongside or through them and often these have not been modelled as part of the indicative flood map due to their limited upstream catchment size. As such there is some uncertainty over the level of flood risk to the site, with the potential that fluvial flood risk may be greater than the Flood Map for Planning. These sites will 7 require further investigation to better refine the flood extents (including climate change) preferably by flood risk modelling or utilising the Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW). For some sites, fluvial climate change assessment is required as this is not modelled.

A Level 2 SFRA could also identify suitable land or techniques that could be used for flood storage to adapt to climate change and urban creep. Even if these cannot be brought forward at this stage in the plan, these could be protected for future plans or for infrastructure to bring forward at the appropriate time. The LLFA may also have areas of surface water flooding to be further investigated. The Level 2 will help determine whether the site can be developed safely, mitigation measures required, sequential approach and applying the Exceptions Test (NPPF paragraph 164). The Level 2 SFRA should inform the site specific polices within the plan that will form the planning framework for the sites. We can provide a separate list of the sites we think would require L2 SFRA assessment if helpful.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
This policy will control biodiversity impacts from development and set out Biodiversity Net Gain requirements (aiming for 20% BNG). We welcome and support the Council’s policy direction on this. It should be clear that BNG is in addition to the standard requirements of the mitigation hierarchy i.e. avoid harm where possible, mitigate for the effects or compensate (paragraph 180 of NPPF). We recommend that local authorities adopt a natural capital evidence approach to underpin their local plan. This is mentioned briefly in the evidence base within the green spaces topic paper. Information can be found here. Natural Cambridgeshire have done some work in this area, looking at opportunity mapping. Also, the recent Oxfordshire Plan 2050 (Reg 18) had some good natural capital and ecosystem services wording (policy option 09) that we recommend you consider. Preparation of a natural capital evidence base and policy is something we (and likely Natural England) could advise on in advance of the next consultation stage.

Wider environmental net gains is also identified as a potential policy requirement which we support, and pending further guidance from a national level. We recommend that geodiversity is also considered.

We recommend ambitious maintenance requirements to protect and ensure longevity of net gain enhancements. The Environment Bill mandates 30 years but ‘in perpetuity’ should be aimed for where possible.

The proposed policy direction includes that off-site measures must be consistent with the strategic aims of the Greater Cambridge green infrastructure network strategic initiatives. We welcome the GI initiatives so far identified within the GC Green Infrastructure Mapping which include revitalising the chalk stream network, the River Cam corridor and enhancement of the fens.

This work can also help to inform a future Local Nature Recovery Strategy in identifying valuable sites, sustainable land management and how the loss and/or fragmentation of existing habitats should be avoided as much as possible. The creation of bigger, better and joined-up habitats will be beneficial to wildlife, contributing towards the local plan’s objective of doubling nature. The creation of large networks will also support ecological resilience to predicted future impacts from climate change and are likely to overlap with net gains in flood risk management.

We recommend this policy also acknowledge the significance of invasive non-native species (INNS) and their impacts on wildlife and the environment. INNS are considered one of the top five threats to the natural environment. They can impact on wildlife, flood risk, water quality and recreation. Costs to the economy are estimated at £1.8 billion per year. Prevention through adopting biosecurity measures can help to reduce the spread and impacts of INNS.

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
We support the policy direction which will require all development to include green infrastructure, and protect/enhance water environments. We welcome the list of green infrastructure initiatives on page 8 173/174 which includes revitalising the chalk stream network and references the River Cam. It’s positive that developments will be expected to help deliver or contribute towards these to enhance the existing green infrastructure network.

In addition, we consider ‘connectivity’ as a key component of this policy. As noted in the Sustainability Appraisal (Non-Technical Summary p. 15) fragmentation and erosion of habitats can be detrimental to wildlife. Existing and new habitats and greenspaces should be retained and enhanced, in connection with existing habitats and the wider countryside, establishing a coherent ecological network, as per the NPPF. We support the references to ‘providing links’ and connecting to the wider ecological network as part of this policy, as this will be invaluable to both green infrastructure provision and nature recovery.

Existing areas of habitat and green spaces within proposed development footprints should be protected and incorporated within landscape designs where possible. As well as protecting existing areas of habitat, mitigation and environmental enhancements can be delivered through appropriate design that includes creation of new habitats and green spaces. New habitats should be representative of and complement the local landscape character, whilst being linked to existing features and the wider countryside, creating joined-up, resilient ecological networks

BG/RC: River corridors
We support the inclusion of a policy to manage development that has an impact on river corridors and proposes to protect, enhance and restore natural features, supporting re-naturalisation. This is particularly important for Cambridge due to the presence of chalk streams and the role rivers and their associated floodplains play in managing flood risk and provision of habitats. The proposed policy direction includes ‘ensure that the location, scale and design of development, protects and enhances the character’ and we recommend this includes the provision of appropriate setback of developments from rivers to provide sufficient space for flood waters as well as safeguarding the integrity of the river banks and the development itself. Rivers unless they have been artificially straightened move through their landscapes through natural processes of erosion and deposition. Although river migration occurs over long time periods, developments should be set back generously to account for this alongside climate change. Natural flood management also has the potential to deliver multiple benefits. Tall buildings can have an adverse effect if located too close to a watercourse by introducing overshadowing impacts and artificial lighting which disrupts natural diurnal rhythms of wildlife such as bats.

Wellbeing and inclusion – general comments
We recommend reviewing the document The State of the Environment: Health, People and the Environment (2020).This report, prepared by the Environment Agency, highlights the substantial body of evidence indicating the physical and mental health benefits of spending time in the natural environment. Access to the natural environment is not equally distributed, those living in deprived areas often have poorer quality environments with less accessible green and blue space. The GC Local Plan presents an opportunity to level-up communities, tackling this green inequality at scale and improving the health and wellbeing of those living and working in the GC area, by creating and contributing to healthier, greener, and more accessible environments. This must, however, be achieved in balance with the need to protect the environment, by providing appropriate wildlife refuges from human disruption and interference.

WS/HS: Pollution, health and safety
We would welcome a policy that details how land contamination should be considered, ensuring the land is suitable for the end use but also ensuring that water quality of the underlying aquifers is protected.

There are some plans and strategies that will be relevant to inform this policy. In 2018 the Government committed through the 25 Year Environment Plan to ‘achieve clean air’ and to ‘minimise waste, reuse materials as much as we can and manage materials at the end of their life to minimise the impact on the environment’. The State of the Environment: Health, People and the Environment (2020) highlights the extent of the threat that air quality poses to health in the UK, shortening tens of thousands of lives each year. Analysis also shows that areas of higher deprivation and those with high proportions of ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by high levels of air pollution. Growth plans provide the opportunity to address these inequalities by improving the quality of the environment and strategically planning the location of land use types.

We welcome that the policy will provide protection to and from hazardous installations. However, Waste management facilities also have the potential to pollute the environment, cause nuisance or amenity issues through dust and particulate emissions to air, release to ground and surface water, and to leave a legacy of contaminated land. Studies have found that more deprived populations are more likely to be living closer to waste sites, and can therefore at times be subject to greater impacts such as noise, litter, dust, odours, or increased vehicular traffic. Strategic planning of waste and resource use provides the opportunity to address this issue.

H/RC: Residential caravans
This policy will set out the criteria to be used when considering proposals for new residential caravan sites. Annex C ‘Flood risk vulnerability classification’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) classifies caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use as highly vulnerable. Permanent caravans, mobile homes and park homes if located adjacent to rivers are at significant risk from being inundated very quickly from floodwaters, without sufficient warning or adequate means of escape. There are additional dangers from the potential for floating caravans (if they become untethered), cars and objects/debris becoming trapped beneath the caravans will increase the risk by displacing floodwater elsewhere.

Page 295 states that an accommodation needs assessment is currently being developed. The Sequential Test (paragraph 161 of the NPPF) should also be applied to the accommodation needs assessment to avoid where possible locating accommodation sites in areas at risk of flooding. This should be informed by the Level 1 and where necessary a Level 2 SFRA. We recommend given the high vulnerability of this type of accommodation that flood risk is a key consideration within the policy criteria.

H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People sites
The proposed policy direction includes ‘Sites are capable of providing an appropriate environment for residents in terms of health, safety and living conditions.’ Similar to our comments to Policy H/GT above, Annex C ‘Flood risk vulnerability classification’ of the NPPF classifies ‘caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use’ as highly vulnerable. Sites used for holiday or short let caravans and camping (subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan) are classified as more vulnerable. We recommend given the higher vulnerability of this type of accommodation that flood risk is a key consideration within the policy criteria.

Page 298 states that a joint accommodation needs assessment is currently being developed. The Sequential Test (paragraph 161 of the NPPF) should also be applied to the accommodation needs assessment to avoid where possible locating accommodation sites in areas at risk of flooding. This should be informed by the Level 1 and where necessary a Level 2 SFRA.

The existing site at Fen Road continues to be a source of ongoing local water quality and environmental health problems due to inadequate foul drainage provision. There have been a number of reports of foul sewage from the site discharging into the River Cam, causing chronic on-going pollution. Water quality and ensuring appropriate drainage infrastructure is also an important consideration for these sites, both in terms of protecting the environment and safeguarding the health of the site occupiers. Policy H/23 ‘Design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites and Travelling Showpeople Sites’ in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 provides an example of this, with the following wording: d. All necessary utilities can be provided on the site including mains water, electricity supply, drainage, sanitation and provision for the screened storage and collection of refuse, including recyclable materials;” Policy H/GT should include provision for mains foul drainage and protection of water quality as part of the policy criteria.

Infrastructure – general comments
Infrastructure and connectivity improvements, must be achieved in balance with the need to protect natural spaces, providing both accessibility and retaining restricted access refuges for wildlife. There is the opportunity to achieve both if, for example, cycle and pedestrian networks are considered strategically and systematically alongside green infrastructure and natural capital networks. A holistic approach to connectivity and infrastructure should be adopted, considering the multifunctional possibilities that provision of new transport and utilities infrastructure provide. For example, by integrating new road or rail schemes with flood resilience measures, energy generation, and green infrastructure enhancements.

I/SI: Safeguarding important infrastructure
We welcome the intention to work with infrastructure providers to consider whether planned strategic infrastructure or future land should be safeguarded. This should also include land for flood storage and flood risk infrastructure which is likely to include river corridors. Managing flood risk both now and in the future will require the plan taking a pro-active approach taking into account climate change. Your SFRA evidence base can inform this identification for safeguarding. The functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b) is a zone comprising land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood, identified in SFRAs and deemed to be the most at risk of flooding from rivers or sea. The SFRA should also gather information on flood risk management projects. The GOSIS (formerly Great Ouse Storage and Conveyance study) will assess how flood risk within the catchment can be managed now and into the future, giving a high-level evaluation of the costs of benefits of providing large storage volumes in the catchment. The GOSIS project will look for areas for flood risk management and draft outputs from this likely to be available towards the end of GC Local Plan process. There is also the Girton Flood Alleviation Scheme (Washpit Brook catchment) and flood risk management options at Oakington Brook (the latter referenced in our comments to Policy

As mentioned for Policy CC/FM, although a sequential approach has been considered there many sites proposed on the fringes of Flood Zones 2 and 3. This reduces and potentially eliminates future flood storage options for adapting to climate change. It’s important the L2 SFRA assesses these sites for their deliverability but also a broad perspective is taken to planning for flood risk both now and in the future. Creating extra flood storage to allow space for flood waters will be a vital component of that plan. We’d also expect safeguarding to include what is required for water infrastructure more broadly (water supply and waste) and green infrastructure/biodiversity.

I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery
We support the policy direction to propose to only permit development if there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the requirements arising from the new development. The developer certainly has a role in this, beneath a robust and deliverable strategic framework led by the Council and other strategic infrastructure providers (informed by evidence).

As noted for Policy S/DS, we support the idea of development limited to levels that can be supported by a sustainable water supply (phased delivery) until the time the strategic infrastructure is in place. It is important that development is sustainable and the environment is protected throughout the process of infrastructure planning.

I am making a response on behalf of the Cambridge Group of the Ramblers, a statutory consultee.

Our primary concern is the total lack of specific proposals for improving both access and connectivity for people wishing to move around the Greater Cambridge area on foot, away from motorised traffic. Well-meaning comments are made about the value of public rights of way, but there is no mention of what should be identified as priorities for action. The inadequate provision of open space as access land is identified, but no areas are identified for safe-guarding to meet this. Funding of paths and open access land is not addressed at all.

Consequently we see no incentives for developers to meet existing, let alone future, need.

The Group would like to put forward a list of specific proposals which should be included in the Plan, so that ‘development taxes’ can be targeted at achieving these.

An off road NMU route from Cherry Hinton Road up to the Beechwoods and Roman Road; negotiations with landowners are required to start ASAP. A large population of SE Cambridge has no off-road access to some of our best landscape area;. Lime Kiln Hill is extremely dangerous and an alternative is required NOW. There is a track behind the Peterhouse Technology Park which might provide a good start!
Links from the new Marleigh development to the PROW network in the Wilbrahams/Teversham area as well as Fen Ditton/Lode;
Rights of way between Great Shelford and Hauxton to link with Trumpington Meadows Park and Hobson Park; the permissive path between Great Shelford and Hauxton must be upgraded to a PROW and there needs to be an alternative to the Genome path, possibly using existing permissive paths, augmented by off-road paths.

PROW paths are required between Magog Down and the City, including the Nine Wells development and Biomedical campus.

Planned development on the Marshalls Airport site must be connected by a ‘green lung’ to Teversham and Fulbourn rights of way.

There is a desperate need for at least one, probably two, major new country parks; Nature Reserves DO NOT meet this need because of pressures which numbers of people place on fragile biosystems. These require visitor facilities such as car parks and toilets. It would be even better if they can be accessed by public transport. Milton CP and Wandlebury are already over-subscribed. Coton Reserve has limited access due to agricultural tenancies taking up much of the land and a lack of facilities for visitors. Wimpole is very unclear about its role as only National Trust members can use the Estate car park in order to enter the parkland without a very high fee being payable. The Beds, Cambs & Northants Wildlife Trust is unwilling to accept open access unless there is a PROW; the RSPB at Fowlmere is even more restrictive.The Local Plan should identify prospective areas for the creation of such parks, requesting bids from landowners and potential managers. Funding should be through S106/CIL received through the new developments.

The Local Plan requires definite schemes and funding through development, not general aspirations which won’t be achieved.