Wellbeing and inclusion

All new homes should have provision for food growing and everyone should have access to growing spaces. All new community buildings should offer space for cooking, eating, sharing and learning about food. Examples include:
• Facilities in social centres for shared cooking and meals, and provision of a community kitchen
• Provision of space for small shops and cafes
• Schools, nurseries and sheltered housing schemes with space for growing fruit / vegetables

Grosvenor support these policies. The proposals at Whittlesford would help to build a healthy and sustainable community. See section 6 of the representation and the Design Vision.

Great Shelford Parish Council is concerned that the First Proposals do not demonstrate that this aspect has been fully considered. We see little evidence that there are detailed plans regarding the infrastructure to support well-being and inclusion as communities need more than homes and businesses to thrive, such as: green community spaces such as public parks, policing, schools, shops, hospital spaces (Addenbrookes is full), GP surgeries, dentists, community pubs, integrated transport infrastructure, sports and leisure facilities and the like. In Great Shelford, for example, our local dentists and GP surgeries are struggling to cope with demand. We have observed that many recent developments near Great Shelford have not delivered in this area, which pushes demand onto the services in our village, increasing stresses to the whole community.

We support policies for health and wellbeing which reflect the wider determinants of health and promote healthy and green lifestyle choices through well designed places.

Cambourne Town Council supports the theme as it addresses the aims contained in the vision.

One thing however appeared missing, as although there was emphasis on ‘access’ no mention was made of public transport provision ie buses. For the over 65s (which are increasing in number) but also for younger low paid workers, transport to any services and social support is a huge part of wellbeing. Lower housing density, increased dwelling space standards and access to private amenity space (gardens in normal speak) are also essential to achieving well being.
We have some concerns about heritage sites and conservation areas which are due a review. We would like to see proper protection for many of the great places in our district.
There seems to be mention of jobs without any real examination of what these might be in COVID-influenced times. It would be good to see community work hubs similar to WeWork, so that instead of working from home people have an option where they can easily access meeting rooms, printers and an opportunity to network in their neighbourhoods.

Introduction
Thank you for consulting Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) on the first proposals consultation for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan 2041. Please accept this letter as our formal response. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the proposals in this consultation and look forward to continuing the good working relations that CBC has already forged with the two substantive authorities. We have provided some comments below on the consultation documentation which we hope are useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

General Comments on Strategy

Overall, the Council supports the approach you have taken in terms of undertaking a joint local plan to ensure a consistent approach to planning and building across both Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council up to 2041.

We support the proposed Vision for the Greater Cambridge Plan especially as it places climate impacts at the heart of key decisions. It states that Greater Cambridge will be a place where a big decrease in your climate impacts comes with a big increase in the quality of everyday life for all your communities. It also promotes new development minimising carbon emissions and reliance on the private car; creating thriving neighbourhoods with the variety of jobs and homes you need; increasing nature, wildlife and green spaces; and safeguarding your unique heritage and landscapes. CBC considers this to be a laudable, succinct overarching Vision that we hope you will be able to carry through to effective policy and decision-making on the ground.

CBC considers that the proposed strategy outlined within the First Proposals could help ensure that Greater Cambridge makes a valuable contribution to the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and to the overall delivery of the Government’s ambitious growth aspirations. However, the Council considers that it would be useful to include reference to the emerging Arc Spatial Framework, identifying that alongside the NPPF, this will set the overarching strategic framework for the area with which all local plans within the Arc must accord. CBC would be keen to understand the timescales for the delivery of the Greater Cambridge Plan and how the emerging Spatial Framework will be taken into consideration to inform future iterations of the plan.

We appreciate that the Plan is at an early stage of development, and at the current time you are considering locations that could be delivered alongside allocated sites being carried forward from the adopted 2018 Local Plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, as well as sites which already have planning permission.

We note that you are proposing to meet in full your objectively assessed needs of 44,400 new homes to 2041, which is supported by CBC and is necessary to ensure needs can be met across the area.

CBC recognises that Cambridge has seen significant economic and jobs growth in recent years and that there is an ambition to maintain this direction of growth as the impacts of the recent pandemic subside. As stated in our comments made in response to your Issues and Options Consultation in February 2020, we would not support a level of jobs growth that could detrimentally impact upon the ability of neighbouring authorities, such as Central Bedfordshire, to meet and deliver their own economic ambitions and growth aspirations. CBC therefore supports the housing numbers proposed to meet the OAN and the identified buffer and welcomes the move away from the higher job number which were put forward in your Issues and Options consultation. We agree that the higher jobs forecast previously considered would not be the most appropriate scenario to pursue. Overall, CBC considers that the proposed level of housing of 44,400 new homes and complementary economic growth of 58,500 new jobs across all sectors including business, retail, leisure, education and healthcare, is an appropriate level of growth to deliver for over the plan period.

The First Proposals have suggested 19 new possible locations that might be suitable for additional development to meet your needs across the Greater Cambridge area up to 2041. Overall, CBC supports the proposed approach taken to the geographical spread of these sites and welcomes the inclusion of sites in the most sustainable locations around the Cambridge urban area and on the outskirts of the City, where existing and future residents can take most advantage of the proximity to jobs and services using public transport and active travel options. The proposals to direct development to where it has the least climate impact, where active and public transport is the natural choice is logical and fully supported.

It is noted that the consultation material suggests that the majority of your objectively assessed need can be provided for in the core preferred strategic sites of North East Cambridge, Cambridge East and Cambourne. This approach is supported as the locations will reduce potential climate impacts through the delivery of well connected, sustainable, compact development where active and sustainable travel can be maximised.

CBC have not provided detailed comments on all of the proposed 19 sites included within the consultation material but note the proposals for new strategic scale development at Cambourne which lies in close proximity to Central Bedfordshire. It is noted that in total, there are 3 development sites proposed for Cambourne - two of these are existing allocations; Cambourne West which has capacity for 2,590 units and Bourn Airfield which has capacity for 2,460 units, alongside a new proposed broad location for growth at Camborne - expected to deliver 1,950 homes.

CBC recognises that whilst a final decision has not yet been announced, the preferred East West Rail route between Bedford and Cambridge will likely result in a new stopping station at Cambourne and that this will transform the area, maximising sustainable opportunities for growth. Whilst we support the opportunities that the proposed new station would potentially bring, CBC would suggest that any future transport impact assessments and traffic modelling associated with the proposals should consider the cumulative impacts of both existing and proposed development at Cambourne and any implications for the wider area, including potential impact upon the strategic and local road network within Central Bedfordshire. It is likely that there will be cumulative impacts from growth at Cambourne on communities within CBC related to an increase in demand on the A1, particularly if / when the A428 dualling and Black Cat works are carried out, and also the more minor roads through areas like Potton, Sandy, Biggleswade. Whilst outside of the Greater Cambridge plan area, the capacity of the A1 in this area is already a key concern that affects a much wider area and must be considered carefully and comprehensively when decisions are being made in relation to future growth.

We would, therefore, welcome further engagement to understand the scale of those impacts and their likely implications for Central Bedfordshire communities as the work on the local plan and the sites themselves, progresses. We would welcome being involved in early engagement with National Highways in relation to these impacts. We would also be keen to look at opportunities to secure sustainable links (via public transport) between CBC and the development areas to the west and south of the Greater Cambridgeshire area.

As noted above, whilst a formal decision is yet to be announced in relation to EWR between Bedford and Cambridge, or indeed the location of a new stopping station at either Tempsford or to the south of St Neots, CBC consider it essential that the Greater Cambridge Plan considers the wider context of strategic growth within the Arc, particularly in terms of future connectivity opportunities that will undoubtedly arise as proposals within neighbouring authority areas emerge. Your approach to enabling some development within smaller villages is supported as this will support rural services and the vitality and viability of villages and their shops and services contributing to overall sustainability. We appreciate that it is unsustainable to encourage high levels of growth where car travel predominates and that therefore, in smaller villages you will continue to support infill development and affordable housing on suitable sites only. This approach is supported, especially given the very rural nature of the areas close to the Central Bedfordshire border.

The 7 Themes
We welcome the approach taken in this consultation to identify 7 key themes and we have provided some high-level comments on each of them below. It is understood that each of the themes will influence how you will plan homes, jobs and infrastructure and ultimately where growth will be directed. In our previous response to the Issues and Options stage of consultation (February 2020) we suggested that “connectivity” both within and beyond the Greater Cambridge area should perhaps be considered as an additional theme. Whilst we note this suggestion has not been taken onboard, CBC considers that connectivity is the ‘golden thread’ that runs through all the key themes and could potentially be referenced as such within the Greater Cambridge Plan.

Climate Change
We support your aim to help Greater Cambridge to transition to net zero carbon by 2050 through a number of comprehensive measures including ensuring that development is sited in places that help to limit carbon emissions, is designed to the highest achievable standards for energy and water use and is resilient to current and future climate risks. It is clear that responding to climate change has influenced the shape of the plan as an important factor in determining where future development should be located and how it should be built. CBC would be keen to have future conversations to share experiences and to understand how net zero carbon can be achieved in terms of viability, and to explore how this can be monitored to ensure the approach is successful. In terms of detailed policy, Policy GP/QD could benefit by also referring to building orientation to maximise the opportunities for renewables.

Biodiversity and Green Spaces
We support your aim for biodiversity and green space policies to increase and improve your extensive network of habitats for wildlife and green spaces for people, ensuring that development leaves the natural environment better than it was before. We also welcome confirmation that the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Environmental Principles have informed your approach to this theme, in particular, we welcome and support the ambitious policy to require 20% Biodiversity Net Gain. As this will be an issue for all Local Authorities within the Arc, CBC would also be keen to discuss how this could be delivered and the impacts this might have not only on site viability, but
the delivery of other key services and facilities across the Arc .

Wellbeing and Social Inclusion
We support your aim of helping people in Greater Cambridge to lead healthier and happier lives ensuring everyone benefits from the development of new homes and jobs.

Great Places
We support your aim for the delivery of great places through policies that sustain the unique character of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire and compliment the area with beautiful and distinctive new development, creating a place where people will want to live, work and play.
The themes from the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth covering the four “Cs” of Community, Connectivity, Climate and Character is a sensible approach consistent with the National Model Design Code.

Jobs
CBC supports the aim of your proposed jobs policies in terms of encouraging a flourishing and mixed economy which includes a wide range of jobs while maintaining the areas global reputation for innovation. The Council considers the policies are positive and forward thinking in the current climate in that they seek to reflect how the approach to working environments is changing, by supporting remote working and improving facilities on employment parks.
We support the inclusion of a remote working policy but consider that it could be strengthened to refer to the provision of home office space in new dwellings as the emphasis is currently on the delivery of external hubs or extensions of existing dwellings.

Homes
As commented above, the Council supports the proposed strategy to plan for and deliver enough housing to meet your objectively assessed needs, including significant amounts of affordable housing and a mix of tenures to suit your diverse community’s needs. The proposed policy requiring 40% affordable housing in new developments is particularly supported.

Infrastructure
We support the approach taken that the relationship between jobs and homes and sustainable transport opportunities has been a key consideration and influence of the development strategy proposed. Recognising that infrastructure is not limited to the provision of new roads, CBC also supports the recognition for the need to consider and plan for water, energy and digital networks, and health and education and cultural facilities in the right places and at the right times to ensure your growing communities are supported. Looking to the future, your policies on electric vehicle charging points and digital infrastructure will be key given the need to move away from carbon-based vehicle fuels and the shift to homeworking that has been accelerated by the pandemic. We also note that whilst there is an objective for Air Quality within the Sustainability Appraisal, there is no objective included for Transport and Access.

We welcome this opportunity to comment on this latest stage of your development plan proposals and largely offer our support to the approach you have taken. We also appreciate how you have digitally presented and structured the documentation in order to make it as accessible as possible to everyone. The use of maps and diagrams throughout the document is an effective way of setting out the context and portraying the information within the text. In addition, the ability to explore the documentation through the “themes” and “maps” is a particularly helpful way of organising the consultation.
I hope you find these comments useful and look forward to continued engagement as your plan progresses.

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.

The strategy for this section is set out on page 30 under Policy S/DS: Development strategy, which states “Using less land for development reduces our carbon emissions, and allows more space for nature and wildlife, so we propose that sites should be developed at densities, and using appropriate forms and patterns of development, which make best use of land while creating well-designed, characterful places.”
Whilst, rightly, the pendulum has swung towards reducing carbon emissions, it is important to avoid the law of unintended consequences. As housing becomes more dense and living spaces smaller, in order to accommodate growth, there is a tendency to forget about people. It was a mistake made both during the industrial revolution and with the high-rise flats of the 1960s. I hear now of some local developments where locals cannot, in modern accommodation, get a single bed up a stairwell and fear that our basic design standards are already set too low.
Pages 188/9 of How has this influenced the shape of the plan? identifies policy areas in the plan that seek to meet the needs of all sectors of our communities – some of which need to be unpicked further if they are to deliver to their aspirations:
· providing good quality, affordable housing in accessible locations. The term “affordable housing” has little meaning in Cambridge when house prices are very high. The Plan should aspire to better and more imaginative ways to identify ways we can build “houses that people can actually afford.”
· providing good access to services and facilities. Many in the Queen Edith’s area are disappointed that both Nine Wells and GB1/2 have been designed with little reference to the wider Queen Edith’s community and consequently are likely to become soulless over time.
· creating places that enable healthy and active lifestyles and social interaction.
· supporting access to education, employment and training opportunities. It is unclear how the Greater Cambridge Planning can do this.
· promoting sustainable and active travel.
· providing community and shared spaces.
· protecting and providing public access to open spaces and the natural environment.
Nowhere in this list is there any reference to the disabled.
Policy WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments (Pages 190/1) is welcomed. It will be important for appropriate external groups to be involved in Health Impact Assessments at an early stage.
Policy WS/CF: Community, Sports, and Leisure Facilities states that “loss of facilities will only be supported if they are either suitably replaced or it can be satisfactorily proven they are no longer needed.” Is it possible to guard against landlords who wish, at the end of a lease, to give notice to a Club on their land, or charge a rent so high that the Club is forced to leave?
I note that The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will identify what facilities are needed... Is the Planning Department aware of the “Place Standard” Survey carried out by Cllr Sam Davies for Queen Edith’s and published in Feb 2020?

Broadly supportive of aspiration but concerned at ambiguity in some of the detail.

Vision and development strategy
Vision and aims
THE VISION
The vision is contradictory, misconceived and undemocratic, unquestioning, unachievable, and based on inadequate evidence. The draft Plan and this whole consultation are premature.

It is contradictory in that the vision of a big decrease in climate impacts is totally undermined by blindness to fundamental incompatibilities between growth and carbon reduction. Its claims of sustainability and Net Zero are not credible given that the carbon costs of construction are not included in the Plan’s definition of a Net Zero Carbon building.

It is misconceived and undemocratic in that it claims to want “the variety of homes and jobs we need” when all the proposed options involve levels of growth dictated by a combination of Government fiat (through both imposed housing targets and four growth corridors led by the Ox Cam Arc) and the ambitions of a local oligarchy (exemplified by Cambridge Ahead) which is unrepresentative of the people of Greater Cambridge. The Arc proposals are in direct conflict with the “levelling up” agenda, will not deliver “levelling up” in terms of Cambridge’s inequalities (notably affordable housing) and should not be taken as justification for the level of growth being proposed (https://smartgrowthuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The_Overheated_Arc_Part_3_September_2021.pdf).

The Plan’s “predict and provide” approach fails to even question the desirability or deliverability of this imposed growth. Nor does it begin to tackle the severe challenges arising from past and present growth, notably in terms of affordability (in the most unequal city in England), and transport capacity issues (first identified by Holford 70 years ago), both of which have been exacerbated by growth, and will be further exacerbated, not diminished, by the growth now proposed.

It is unachievable in that
a) it ignores environmental capacity limits, most immediately in relation to water issues, but also in relation to the physical character of Greater Cambridge, and the capacity challenges of accommodating the intense activity of a 21st century city within the built fabric and spaces of a historic University town and its hinterland.
b) its claims to increase nature, wildlife and green spaces rely on a quantum of development that, considered holistically, will have an opposite effect.
c) the Plan’s growth proposals will compound the damaging impacts of current growth on our unique heritage and landscapes.

Its evidence base is incomplete and inadequate. Inexcusably, it has no assessment whatever of environmental capacity (a fundamental issue for the Plan) other than in relation to water supply. The Climate change evidence is inadequate and misleading, notably because it uses a definition of Net Zero Building which omits the embodied carbon of construction. There is no review or assessment of the success or failure of current local plan or other policies. This is compounded by the woefully inadequate historic environment evidence base, which has no strategic consideration of Cambridge as a world famous historic city, and is so incomplete that it only mentions one Conservation Area Appraisal (the Historic Core) when all the city’s Conservation Areas are covered by Appraisals, and fails to use the readily available evidence contained within them.
The draft Plan and the whole consultation are premature pending
1) A thorough understanding and appreciation of the current character of Greater Cambridge and its environmental capacity
2) The forthcoming Water Resources East consultation on the Regional Water Plan, on which these proposals depend
3) Transport solutions which can be accommodated in the space available, including those currently and imminently out for consultation on transport capacity and links within and outside the city.

THE AIMS
The Plan’s aims do not include what is arguably the most vital: how to maintain, enhance, and provide more equitable access to what makes Cambridge special, in the face of the combined challenges of growth and Climate Change. This should be a key priority of the Historic Environment Strategy which is required by the NPPF, but absent from the First Proposals.

As someone from the Tech industry said in a meeting last year with Stephen Kelly, Director of Planning: “Malta has concrete high rises, no one goes there. The Tech sector comes here because it’s a nice place to be. If Cambridge takes a predict and provide approach, it will accelerate into catastrophe.”

How much development, and where – general comments
No more development allocations until issues arising from existing approved growth have been identified and tackled. This means waiting for the Regional Water Plan and coherent publicly-endorsed proposals for tackling existing congestion and capacity issues, challenging the assumptions underlying the Ox Cam Arc, and carrying out a holistic assessment of environmental capacity and the limits to growth. All in line with the principles of Doughnut Economics which the City Council says that it has adopted.

The evidence base is seriously inadequate in relation to environmental capacity. There is no evaluation of the success or failure of existing policies in maintaining the special character of Cambridge, an aim which the new Plan seeks to maintain. Such consideration needs to include not only impacts of the form, scale and location of new development, but also of the transport and other infrastructure required by it. Current growth is putting massive, and unresolved pressures on the capacity of existing transport links, and the physical capacity of Cambridge’s roads system and public realm.

The GCP’s Making Connections proposals, currently under consultation, attempt to resolve some of the challenges, but have no detailed assessment of the capacity of Cambridge’s streets to take the extra volumes of bus and cycle traffic being proposed. Given that Cambridge’s congestion problems are historic, and compounded by growth, this consultation on Local Plan proposals for additional growth is premature in the absence of credible and detailed proposals to tackle current capacity issues.
S/DS: Development strategy
How can the proposals aim for net zero with this sheer volume of proposed development (while whole-life costing of large new proposals is welcome, what about the carbon cost of developments in the pipeline? - see above and comments on CC/NZ below).
No mention of impacts of transport links required for these proposals. Need to ensure that these are brought forward in concurrently with the Local Plan proposals.
Cambridge urban area
Cambridge urban area - general comments

Massive environmental capacity issues, with inadequate space in City streets and public realm to cater for existing traffic, let alone approved growth already in the pipeline – even before considering these First Proposals. The capacity issues have to be tackled, with additional growth allowed only if they can be resolved.

No mention of Covid and opportunities for city centre residential / other uses resulting from potential radical changes in retail.
No new cultural or provision for other “city-scale” needs, so putting the city centre under even greater pressure.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Vividly illustrates the issues. Gross over development.
Edge of Cambridge
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
The Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

This highlights a vital flaw of the Plan, its failure to take a holistic view of the combination of different elements (including historic and natural environment) which make up the character of Greater Cambridge. The Government may have tried to artificially separate the natural and built environment with its Environment Act, but that doesn’t mean this approach should be followed in Cambridge!

Climate change
Climate change - general comments

The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Already out of date in terms of Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice.
Support regular reviews to keep pace with developing technology, standards, Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice. There are also serious quality control challenges in relation to whether aspirational aims are actually delivered. How will this be done? Outline planning permissions must be subject to the aspirations articulated in draft local plan. How will this be done?
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” (sic) and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)
Agree that development should be located so that low carbon transport links can be accessed. However, such locations should not be chosen based on proposed busways – the delivery of these is uncertain and their construction generates carbon emissions through the embodied carbon in the building materials, tree felling reducing carbon capture, maintenance and serving works, and lighting, contrary to the Council’s net zero carbon agenda.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

Incredibly, no mention of retrofit in the Climate Change topic paper! The Council’s apparent view that retrofit is not within the scope of the Plan is mistaken. The only place in which retrofit is mentioned, and far too narrowly, is in policy GP/CC in the Great Places paper. This is one of several instances where a holistic approach should require read-across between Policies in different sections (e.g. also between historic environment and natural environment).

Retrofit will be within the direct scope of the Plan (guiding planning decisions) whenever it involves works which could potentially require planning permission or listed building consent.
[Case in point is the new Institute for Sustainability Leadership building (conversion of former telephone exchange) on Regent St. Major impact on appearance of building which makes (or made) a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, not a heritage asset but requiring planning permission. The submitted justification included every possible assessment criterion apart from townscape / heritage impact (shockingly not even considered by the applicants!). What has been approved and is now being built involved losing the window detailing which was a key part of the building’s character. Since that scheme was approved, PAS 2038 (non-domestic retrofit guidance) has come into force: it would have required a more comprehensive approach by the applicants, and might have led to a different decision. ]

Retrofit is also within the scope of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, which needs to be updated to include embodied carbon, over the whole life cycle of construction (including retrofit and refurbishment), as set out in British Standard BS EN 15978:2011:
SEE ATTACHED
(slide by Alice Moncaster)

This Climate Change section should include specific policies covering retrofit, which will feature ever more strongly as Govt targets for Band C etc bite. These targets present serious challenges now, and will get ever more serious during the Plan period, with high risks of carbon (and money) being wasted on inappropriate works. Yet Net Zero Carbon for existing buildings is mentioned only cursorily, on a single page (35) of the Local Plan’s Net Zero Carbon Evidence Base.

There is no mention whatsoever of the need for a different approach to buildings of traditional solid wall construction. These form at least a quarter of the existing stock; this proportion should have been considered and assessed as part of the Evidence Base. It could even be as high as 35%, the proportion quoted in the BRE study “Solid wall heat losses and the potential for energy saving” published by DECC in 2015.

The specific challenges of traditional buildings , and the risks of unforeseen consequences (and of consequent waste, rather than saving, of carbon and money) are highlighted in PAS2035, the Government’s guidance on domestic retrofit, which is referenced in Policy GP/CC. However the reference to PAS 2035 in the Policy is futile in its draft form because the PAS (although Government guidance) is not freely available, but published by the British Standards Institute, costing £190, and so is inaccessible to home owners and others who need the guidance.

The Climate Change section of the Plan should quote key principles and guidance* from PAS 2035 and its non-domestic counterpart PAS 2038 (and reference other freely available advice including from the STBA and IHBC as well as the Government’s own guidance to Private Sector Landlords) in sufficient detail to ensure that people dealing with ALL traditional buildings (not only heritage assets) have access to the appropriate advice and skills to ensure that their buildings are put in good repair, and then suitable retrofit measures are applied as appropriate. See https://stbauk.org/whole-house-approach/. This is essential to achieve the aims of the PASs and to minimise unintended consequences.
*including (e.g.) section 0.1.1 of PAS 2035:
SEE ATTACHED

Biodiversity and green spaces
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Serious environmental capacity issues (see above), particularly in relation to intensification of pressures on green spaces..

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Flawed in that green infrastructure and historic environment re considered separately (see comments on Edge of Cambridge, River corridors, and Protecting open spaces). A holistic approach is essential – see NPPF definition of the historic environment..

BG/RC: River corridors
The River Cam Corridor initiative does not mention the historic environment, historic environment designations, or conservation area appraisals. High risks of more intensive use. no mention of environmental capacity issues or recognition that there may be capacity limits to growth or access by either/both local people and visitors (impacts of punt operators on Cam, etc). No mention of historic environment designations. No consideration of areas under particular threat. No consideration of historic / characteristic uses and land management. The whole river corridor from Byron’s Pool to Baits Bite, and its historic uses are vital parts of the historic and cultural as well as landscape character of Cambridge and should be safeguarded. Grantchester Meadows, one of the key river corridor historic and cultural spaces, is the only vital section of the corridor currently without Conservation Area designation; it is currently threatened by visitor pressures and by possible removal of the grazing cattle which play a vital part in traditional water meadow management.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
No mention that many open spaces are historic, and form part of the historic environment (see NPPF definition of the historic environment) need to consider their significance as a whole, not just in terms of green infrastructure. Historic environment and local identity are vital elements of the wellbeing identified here

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Open space is not just green space - what about the market square, Quayside etc etc? Need to manage existing pressures, and avoid harmful intensification of use, on all open spaces, and ensure that new development does not increase these pressures. The river corridor is particularly vulnerable.


Wellbeing and inclusion
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
There are no documents in the Document Library to support this theme. Why not?

The Topic Paper highlights the importance of place and space, but its text is focused on new developments, and does not mention the contribution made to wellbeing by the beauty and special character of existing places, including the city of Cambridge, the towns and villages, and valued countryside. The historic environment is a vital part of wellbeing.

Nor is Covid mentioned, even though the pandemic has highlighted the vital importance of access to local green space, and to local fresh food. Small local producers have continued to provide when the supermarkets supply chains fail. Cambridge market, and the local producers who sell from it, continues to provide a lifeline of health and wellbeing for many people, as well as providing vital opportunities for business start-ups including makers as well as food sellers.

There is no assessment of existing cultural activities, of current demands for space, or of demands for new space arising from either existing approved growth or that now proposed. Nor is there any assessment of related opportunities in terms of under-used retail space post-Covid. This is a totally inadequate baseline for a credible Plan.

The forthcoming Cultural Infrastructure Strategy for Greater Cambridge will need to recognise Cambridge’s international cultural significance in terms of both its historic environment (which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage sites), and its past and present cultural activities. The Local Plan should include policies to protect this significance, and specifically to support cultural activities, and to provide for, and safeguard, public and private spaces for arts and other activities.

Great places policies
Great places – general comments

The Great Places paper refers to Heritage Assets, but completely fails to recognise that the city of Cambridge is a heritage asset of worldwide significance which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage status. This significance derives from the combination of its built and natural heritage. The draft Plan fails to recognise the vital role which this special character plays in making Cambridge a great place to live in, work, study, and visit.

The draft Plan also fails to recognise the historic relationships between Cambridge as a market town, its market, and its productive hinterland.

The draft Plan’s approach involves a false separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

Cambridge’s special character has been, and continues to be, under severe threats from the quantum of already approved growth (built developments and pressures on both streets and green spaces). There are severe environmental capacity issues in trying to accommodate the demands of a 21st century city within what remains the built fabric and spaces of a medieval market town. These fundamental conflicts between growth on the one hand and environmental capacity and special character on the other should have been recognised as a key challenge for the draft Local Plan. so why wasn’t the Historic Environment Baseline Study prioritised, and published as part of the Nov 2020 tranche?

But the draft Plan documents include no assessment of current pressures, let alone the impacts of the draft First Proposals.

Instead, para 3.2.4 of the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline makes a totally unevidenced statement that:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity".

Overall, the Evidence base for Great Places is inadequate, and the proposals are premature pending a thorough review of the success or failure of existing policies.


GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Over-intensification of use is a major threat to landscape character.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
I strongly support protection of the Green Belt, but the Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

The Council appears to have forgotten that the Green Belt was set up to protect the setting of the historic University city.

GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm
Serious issues of street capacity.

GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets
A vital issue given totally inadequate consideration and priority. The historic environment (not just heritage assets) is a vital part of Cambridge, not just in terms of Great Places, but also for Wellbeing, and for the city’s prosperity.

The historic environment, and its capacity (or not) to withstand existing growth (let alone new growth proposed) should have been considered at the start of the Great Places chapter. Understand what you have, then consider its capacity for change
Fails to consider anything other than designated heritage assets. No consideration of heritage significance of Cambridge as a whole, or of the heritage significance of undesignated buildings, spaces, and intangible heritage –notably Cambridge’s market, which pre-dates the University, and Grantchester meadows.
The Heritage Impact Assessment is not fit for purpose, and clearly written by consultants who have limited knowledge of Cambridge, and of issues, policies, and initiatives relating to its historic environment. There is no mention of any Conservation Area appraisal apart from the Historic Core, and no cumulative assessment of significance and issues identified in these Appraisals.
.
The “Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline” is woefully inadequate in both its scope and its approach:
a) In its scope, because it confines itself to stages 1 (identify the historic assets” and 2 (“define and analyse the settings”) of Historic England’s ”Settings of Heritage Assets: Good Practice Guide”, without considering the dynamic of the city as a whole, what has been happening in its recent years, or the potential impacts of currently approved growth. It is almost as if the Council asked for an updated version of the 1971 publication “Cambridge Townscape”, whilst completely disregarding the award-winning conservation plan approach of the 2006 Historic Core Appraisal which sought to understand not just the physical character of Cambridge but its dynamic, and threats and opportunities, as part of shaping policies.

b) while the document references the Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal, it does not even mention other Conservation Area Appraisals (ignoring the complete Appraisal coverage of the City's Conservation Areas) or issues and opportunities identified therein. Nor does it mention the Suburbs and Approaches Studies. It is all too clear that the consultants have taken only a superficial look at the baseline information.

c) I would have expected consultants preparing this “high level” document to consider the historic environment, and the extent of designations, strategically (a great opportunity for this combined Plan) - but the document does not even consider the extent to which Cambridge’s historic and cultural landscape (including the river corridor from Byron’s pool to Baits Bite Lock) is or is not protected.

d) The study completely fails to assess the significance of Cambridge as a whole. Dennis Rodwell’s “Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities” puts Cambridge on a similar level of international significance to Venice.

e) For the options involving development in and adjacent to Cambridge, it seems to assume that most problems can be resolved by Design, completely ignoring environmental capacity issues. At a most immediate level, what if any detailed assessment has been made of the wider visual impacts of tall buildings on the North-East Cambridge site?

There are fundamental environmental capacity issues in terms of pressures on the character and spaces of the historic core and surrounding landscape, due to not only the additional volumes of development, people and traffic being generated by the proposed additional growth, but all of these arising from existing approved growth plus the transport links required to enable it.

There is no assessment whatever of the cumulative impacts on landscape, townscape and environmental capacity of all the GCP and other proposals including busways, City Access, Greenways, Active Travel schemes etc.

A third-party, holistic overview is essential to identify and try to resolve some of these key strategic issues and balances, and consider to what extent further growth is viable. In relation to heritage, growth is seriously threatening what makes Cambridge Special. I suggest that Historic England’s Historic Places Panel are invited to visit Cambridge and provide strategic recommendations which can inform the Local Plan.

The flaws in the current approach are exemplified by a claim in the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity"
This statement can only be described as unevidenced, shockingly ignorant and ludicrously complacent.
Moving from strategic issues to safeguarding individual heritage assets and their settings, there are serious questions in relation to the effectiveness of existing policies which are proposed to be carried forward.

A case in point is the former Mill Road Library a grade II listed building of high public significance, which was recognised to be “at risk” but ignored by both the City and County Councils during the development and approval of the City’s Depot site redevelopment. This was a massive opportunity which would not have been missed had the City complied with its own Local Plan policy regarding heritage assets. While the County has belatedly refurbished the former Library, it has not been integrated as a public building within the new development. It appears that the County may now be offering this public building, built for the public, for private sale!

GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
This policy is basically very good -but should relate to all buildings of traditional construction, and needs some updating. Needs direct read-across to CC/NZ. See my comments on CC/NZ.
Supporting documents on which we are consulting
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment)

The Sustainability Appraisal fails to tackle the key environmental capacity issues arising from existing growth, let alone that now proposed.

The whole definition of “Sustainable Development” is too narrow given that since 2010 the UN has included Culture as the 4th pillar of Sustainable Development - and Cambridge's historic environment is a cultural asset of worldwide significance.

Within the current UK sustainability assessment process (dating from 2004 and excluding culture), there is a separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

We firmly support the Greater Cambridge Shared Partnership in ensuring that Greater Cambridge’s
valuable open spaces are protected but recognise that the fulfillment of this promise is threatened by the planned development in the north part of the city. At the moment it is apparent that all the citizens of Cambridge do not benefit from the development of new homes and jobs given that Cambridge is becoming widely recognised as the most unequal city in the UK. Only this week a
Guardian journalist published a scathing article following his visit to Cambridge where he discovered “desperate inequality” [1], particularly when encountering our fellow citizens using the food banks in the ward of Abbey. According to the thinktank, Centre for Cities, Cambridge is the most unequal city in the UK [2].
We are concerned that the Local Plan’s slogan of ‘good growth’ will not only worsen environmental damage, but will fail to serve our Cambridge citizens who are greatly disadvantaged. Instead, the planned growth will only serve our significantly privileged citizens - widening the socio-economic gap even further. To illustrate, it was noted in a Cambridge Commons report [3] that while the top 6% of earners in Cambridge earn 19% of the total income generated in the city, the bottom 20% of earners received only 2% of the total income. In addition, it is well known that contemporary Cambridge has experienced one of the fastest growths in housing supply but the average house price exceeded half a million pounds in September this year [4] meaning that you need to earn over £49,338.00 in order to afford to buy a home in this city [5]. These ‘home-truths’ make Cambridge amongst the most unaffordable cities in the UK despite the amount of wealth that is generated here. A good standard of living, where one can afford to get onto the property ladder, is simply not accessible to many local residents who grow up here. Also the high cost of living in Cambridge is likely to deter those living in other parts of the country and the world from coming to live here.
[1] Aditya Chakrabortty, ‘The truth is now plain: in Johnson’s Britain, some lives are more equal than
others,’ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/09/johnson-britain-equal-cambridgerich-
poor
[2] https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/value-challenges-taking-wider-view-city-economies/
[3] https://www.thecambridgecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cambridge-Commons-SIPFinal-
Report-1.pdf
[4] https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ukhpi/browse?from=2021-01-
01&location=http%3A%2F%2Flandregistry.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fregion%2Fcambridge&to=2021-
12-01&lang=en