WS/CF: Community, sports and leisure facilities

Please urgently consider and accelerate the construction of new swimming pools in and outside Cambridge
* Cambridge's swimming pools are overcapacity
* Many people in South Cambridgeshire travel into Cambridge due to lack of capacity within South Cambridgeshire, building pools in these areas reduces traffic
* Historically many areas of Cambridge do not have local wide-use public pool facilities (Cherry Hinton, Arbury/King's Hedges, Eddington etc.)
* Other swimming pools are private, or attached to colleges with more limited opening hours, and more expensive meaning that lower socioeconomic groups are priced out
* Cambridge's swimming pools are predominantly central - building ones near housing expansion (Eddington, Cambourne, Northstowe etc.) would reduce traffic in central areas as well as serving local communities
* Cambridge's and South Cambridgeshire's rapidly expanding population mean pressure on these facilities will only increase
* Greater Cambridge Local Plan Topic Paper - Wellbeing and Social Inclusion identifies the need for 'at least one' 6 lane 25 metre swimming pool to be built in or near Cambridge urgently before 2031

Essential in new settlements, as is the transport for outlying villages to also make use of them.

There is no venue in the whole of Cambridgeshire large enough to host national level indoor sports events watched by seated spectators. I write as Chairman of Cambridge Futsal Club & with the support of Cambridge Handball Club.

The nearest such venues are either Arena Kettering (Northamptonshire)or Sportspark at UEA, Norwich (Norfolk).

This is woeful for the county capital City and for the county as a whole as we approach 2022. How can the next generation of indoor sports players be inspired if they are unable to watch them locally? Seating needs retro fitting in as many sports halls as possible and a longer & wider sports venue needs constructing in Cambridge(shire) that can accommodate approx 400-1k spectators.

Clubs are having to travel to London to play their fixtures!

…and Cambridgeshire locals are unable to enjoy the spectacle of elite level sport…whereas in adjoining counties they can!

Please contact me if you require anymore details.

It is critical that the emerging Local Plan contains policies that seek to protect existing sports facilities that are important to meeting the needs of local residents, and also policies that encourage the development of new facilities that encourage people to take part in sport and physical activity such as walking, cycling etc. Sport England have developed 'Active Design' which gives guidance on making new areas suitable for sport and physical activity. We would like to see 'Active Design' referenced in this policy.

(Education) Where facilities are to be used by the school and the wider community, there are a number of associated safeguarding concerns. For this reason, the Council would strongly suggest that separate access arrangements are planned and these would be expected to be fully funded by the developer to mitigate the level of risk. There will also need to be early engagement from all parties to ensure that there is a mutually agreed basis on which access to the facilities will be managed.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the policy but stresses the need to provide long-term support for community, sports and leisure facilities, continuing beyond the early stages in a development. Based on our experience in the Southern Fringe, it would have been very beneficial to have greater support for the community development process over a longer period than has been possible through the s106 funding and Council budget. This might have helped mitigate the level of anti-social behaviour that has become a problem in the Southern Fringe developments.

It is considered important to provide a policy setting out how new community, sports and leisure facilities will be provided and sustained through new development. The type and scale of facilities should be commensurate to the size of the development proposed.

Abrdn recommends that proposed policy WS/CF makes clear that community, sports and leisure facilities are appropriate in mixed-use developments, such as Lion Yard. This is vital to ensuring continued vitality in this type of development.

It is considered important to provide a policy setting out how new community, sports and leisure facilities will be provided and sustained through new development. The type and scale of facilities should be commensurate to the size of the development proposed.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

This policy specifically includes educational facilities. The proposed policy direction is to support development of new facilities in appropriate locations where there is a local need for the facilities, and they are in close proximity to the people they will serve. New or replacement major facilities serving the city, or where appropriate the sub-region, would need to follow the sequential approach to main town centre uses established by national policy, and be located in sustainable, accessible locations.

The difficulty with this is that education would not normally be considered a main town centre use, and a new school or college serving a city-wide or sub-regional area (such as CMS) might be pushed towards a city centre location without a genuine justification in national policy. We request that the final policy makes it clear that education facilities serving a wider catchment area will not be considered a town centre use requiring the sequential approach to be applied, but that any such facilities must be located in sustainable, accessible locations.

The department welcomes the plan’s recognition that easy access to good quality educational provision is important for supporting economic growth, developing strong sustainable communities, promoting economic prosperity and sustaining quality of life. The plan states that new and replacement facilities should facilitate the growth of the area by providing sufficient capacity to accommodate community need and demand. We request an addition to this, explaining that in some cases this will include wider sub-regional community demand, and that for educational facilities there is a national policy requirement to provide a sufficient choice of school places, which is not necessarily the same as meeting a capacity need within a specific pupil place planning area.

We support this policy. Sports and leisure facilities need to be provided locally.

We support this policy.

Need to aim for a swimming pool within cycling distance of every community.

Subscription based sports facilities should be discouraged to enable it’s use by all. This will then include the society at large.

Regarding the following statement: "This policy will support the development of new facilities in appropriate locations where there is a local need for the facilities, and they are in close proximity to the people they will serve."

Even though there are a lot of skateparks in Cambridge, we're still lacking proper facilities that are appropriate for use year-round. To be suitable in winter, our local skateparks need lights (which could be extinguished late at night to discourage anti-social use), and rain cover. Simple adjustments to provide more space could also be implemented, such as smooth access paths (e.g. Jesus Green).

USS recommends that proposed policy WS/CF makes clear that community, sports and leisure facilities are appropriate in mixed-use developments, such as Grand Arcade & Guildhall Chambers. This is vital to ensuring continued vitality in this type of development.

Marshall recognises the role that community, cultural, education, sports and leisure services and facilities play in creating vibrant, healthy and sustainable places. On that basis, Marshall supports the principle and role of Policy WS/CF in establishing the need and appropriate locations for new or replacement services / facilities. The scale of development at Cambridge East provides a significant opportunity to meet, not only the needs of the future Cambridge East residents, but also a wider demand for community, sports and leisure facilities. Cambridge East is intended to be truly mixed use and will provide an opportunity to deliver enhanced community, sports and leisure facilities, close to the city centre that might not be capable of being accommodated on other more constrained sites. Marshall will work with the community and key stakeholders to understand what type of facilities are currently missing in Cambridge and what the local community needs.

Any policy should prioritise the build of swimming pools for public access in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, especially in the latter due to lack of provision and new development, and existing capacity especially in Cambridge being over capacity. More appropriate provision will also reduce traffic in Newmarket Road and East Road, two existing choke points. Build should be looked at not just on future demand but existing demand especially from students and South Cambridgeshire population into Cambridge

We support the development of new facilities in appropriate locations where there is local need. At the Campus there is an identified need for the social infrastructure, community and leisure facilities that can help a community thrive, and which foster great placemaking. Social infrastructure and community uses are also particularly important for the Campus as they form a key part of the supportive environment for clusters and innovation districts, acting as the connecting mechanism between different users onsite.

The Council appears to have no updated evidence on existing levels of open space and whether these are sufficient. In area where there is a lack of existing open space or facilities then enabling development may be required to ensure delivery.

We support the policy direction, although it is considered that the direction should consider the capacity of existing facilities and capacity offered by educational establishments, to ensure that provision is not sought, where capacity exists elsewhere.

Planning policies should actively support the strategic plans of local health commissioners, and new health facilities to meet the needs of the population should be supported.

There is a well-established connection between planning and health. Planning policies can not only facilitate improvements to health infrastructure, but also provide a mechanism to improve people’s health. We request that the Local Plan includes policies for health and wellbeing which reflect the wider determinants of health and promote healthy and green lifestyle choices through well designed places.

It is essential that all planning policies enable flexibility within the NHS estate. Where it can be demonstrated that health facilities will be changed as part of wider NHS estate reorganisation programmes, it should be accepted that a facility is neither needed nor viable for its current use and Planning policies within the Local Plan must support the principle of alternative uses for NHS land and property. This will ensure that there is not a delay to vital reinvestment in facilities and services for the community.

Cambourne Town Council supports the policy but, this should not rely totally on community hubs providing facilities as this will not meet all the diverse age and cultural needs.

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?

Barrington Parish Council (BPC) is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Greater Cambridge (GCP) Local Plan First Proposals (FP).

1. Overall
1.1. BPC supports the FP development strategy in general terms and supports the principles of plan-led, sustainable development that underpin the FP. BP also supports the general themes of responding to climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, well-being and social inclusion, and great places.

1.2. The wording of many of the proposed policies is incomplete and as always, the devil is in the detail - especially regarding Jobs, Homes and Infrastructure which have the greatest potential impact on the quality of the local environment. BPC is of the view that while these issues are obviously central to any Development Plan, mitigating potentially detrimental effects on rural communities in South Cambridgeshire needs to be managed through effective, carefully worded policies in the Plan.

1.3. BPC particularly welcomes the recognition of and need for reinforcement of the distinctive character of South Cambridgeshire villages.

1.4. However, BPC wishes to make some general strategic and some specific comments as follows.

2. Strategic Issues
2.1. The 2018 Local Plan for South Cambridgeshire is to be succeeded by a Local Plan for a much wider constituency developed by a Partnership for “Greater Cambridge”. This inevitably creates tensions between the interests of the city and those of the surrounding, primarily rural areas. It has to be acknowledged that development pressures in and from the city of Cambridge have significant effects upon the surrounding areas and not all of these are positive and beneficial.

2.2. The First Proposals also seek to support both the Oxford Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework and the proposed East West Rail connection - both of which introduce additional development pressures and significant environmental impacts upon South Cambridgeshire.

2.3. The First Proposals are therefore in a key sense no longer for a “Local” Development Plan but in effect have been transformed into a Regional Development Plan where the local interests and concerns of villages such as Barrington lie at the bottom of the hierarchy of interest and control.

2.4. Policy S/DS. BPC has already placed on record and wishes to re-state its fundamental opposition to both the Oxford Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework and the proposed East West Rail southern route into Cambridge. BPC has concerns that these may lead to central government-imposed rather than locally-agreed development in South Cambridgeshire which will be highly detrimental to the area.

3. Specific Matters
3.1. Policy S/DS BPC agrees that brownfield development should be prioritised and in locally - agreed not nationally targeted locations. Development “around” the villages is not considered sustainable.

3.2. Policy S/SH. BPC supports the retention of the settlement hierarchy, and the definition of Group Villages should be retained as proposed from the 2018 Local Plan, possibly reinforced with stronger wording to restrict exceptional development of up to 15 dwellings only on brownfield sites.

3.3. Policy S/ JH. BPC has concerns about the notion of “Windfall Development”. Either we have a Development Plan or not – the notion of “unplanned” “windfall” or “opportunistic” development – especially if it were to be determined by officers as opposed to councillors – is not compatible with “plan-led development”. The opening the door to opportunistic applications that run counter to the direction of the Development Plan.

3.4. Policy GP/GB. Similarly, BPC opposes development intrusion into the Green Belt. Development “creep” – even for “nationally significant” development should be resisted.

3.5. Policy S/SRC. BPC is concerned about the definition and implications of the “Rural Southern Cluster” and this requires much more detailed elucidation, explanation and justification.

3.6. Policy WS/CF. BPC believes that Community Healthcare facilities should be prioritised as they have been poorly provided for under the current Plan. Much stronger policy definition is required.

3.7. Policy CC/WE. The FP recognise that availability of water resources is a major issue in Greater Cambridge and that the level of growth has significant constraints with regards to water supply. BPC shares these concerns. Policy should address this issue more comprehensively.

4. The Consultation Process
4.1. BPC is pleased to have the opportunity to engage to the extent that it is able with the FP consultation.

4.2. However, GCP’s consultation on the Local Plan is a convoluted process. The material is voluminous, there are 60 policies and the maps are often difficult to interpret electronically, and this militates against inclusion of the diverse age and socio-economic groups in a rural population. It comes across as an IT driven process designed for an urban sophisticated readership. Further thought needs to be put into reducing the complexity but increasing the inclusion, accessibility, and meaningfulness of this consultation.

FORM RESPONSE

Vision and development strategy
Section / Policy Your comments
Vision and aims
How much development, and where – general comments Support the approach to contain any development to major clusters.
S/JH: New jobs and homes
S/DS: Development strategy Support to the extent that development should be very restricted in smaller rural villages with limited public transport.
S/SH: Settlement hierarchy Support Steeple Morden is a group village and should remain in this category. It is well down the sustainability hierarchy.
S/SB: Settlement boundaries Support tightly drawn development boundaries are important to reduce encroachment into the countryside and particularly for linear villages protecting their character. Also assists in delivering exception sites.

Cambridge urban area
Policy Your comments
Cambridge urban area - general comments
S/NEC: North East Cambridge
S/AMC: Areas of Major Change
S/OA: Opportunity Areas in Cambridge
S/LAC: Land allocations in Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge
Policy Your comments
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
S/CE: Cambridge East
S/NWC: North West Cambridge
S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus
S/WC: West Cambridge
S/EOC: Other existing allocations on the edge of Cambridge

New settlements
Policy Your comments
New settlements - general comments
S/CB: Cambourne
S/NS: Existing new settlements

Rural southern cluster
Policy Your comments
Rural southern cluster - general comments
S/GC: Genome Campus, Hinxton
S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster

Rest of the rural area
Policy Your comments
Rest of the rural area - general comments
S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area
S/RRP: Policy areas in the rest of the rural area

Climate change
Policy Your comments
Climate change - general comments Future development and trends will increase the use of electricity so do we have an obligation to consider where we might generate this locally? There should be clear comments on how and where solar PV farms and windfarms are going to be planned
CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings Should not be specific about not connecting a gas pipe to new housing. This might prevent the future distribution of Hydrogen. Should keep this option open
CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments Absolutely necessary.
CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management Infrastructure should be operational before housing occupation. Especially managing hard surface run off.
CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure Support for community led projects but should include access to funding.
CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
CC/CS: Supporting land based carbon sequestration

Biodiversity and green spaces
Policy Your comments
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity Biodiversity Net Gain conditions should include developer funds for monitoring and remedialaction if required.
BG/GI: Green infrastructure Support for recognition of Pollinator corridors. Strategic Green Infrastructure should include protection and enhancement of chalk aquifer spring line.
BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population Support particularly providing enhanced protection to existing mature trees.
BG/RC: River corridors Support Steeple Morden has an important tributary of the Cam flowing through the Parish – The Rhee. There should also be recognition enhancement and protection for the brooks which emanate from the aquifer spring line and help feed the river system.
BG/PO: Protecting open spaces Support
BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces Support

Wellbeing and inclusion
Policy Your comments
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
WS/CF: Community, sports, and leisure facilities Support
WS/MU: Meanwhile uses during long term redevelopments
WS/IO: Creating inclusive employment and business opportunities through new developments
WS/HS: Pollution, health and safety Support

Great places policies
Policy Your comments
Great places – general comments
GP/PP: People and place responsive design Support
GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character Support. Need to ensure protection of landscape setting of villages and penetration of countryside gaps as an important element of character particularly those villages with a predominantly linear form.
GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
GP/QD: Achieving high quality development Support
GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm Support
GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets Support Need to complete Conservation Area Assessments for villages
GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
GP/PH8: Protection of Public Houses Support but condition included that if part of Pub is agreed for another use the marketing policy remains.

Jobs policies
Policy Your comments
Jobs – general comments
J/NE: New employment development proposals
J/RE: Supporting the rural Economy Support
J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land Strongly support particularly in the light of grade I peat soil requiring remedial action and the need for increased food security.
J/PB: Protecting existing business space
J/RW: Enabling remote working Support
J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries
J/EP: Supporting a range of facilities in employment parks
J/RC: Retail and centres
J/VA: Visitor accommodation, attractions and facilities
J/FD: Faculty development and specialist / language schools

Homes policies
Policy Your comments
Homes – general comments
H/AH: Affordable housing
H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing Support but all types of sites should retain local connection and permanence criteria
H/HM: Housing mix
H/HD: Housing density
H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots Support
H/SS: Residential space standards and accessible homes
H/SH: Specialist housing and homes for older people
H/CB: Self- and custom-build homes
H/BR: Build to rent homes
H/MO: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
H/SA: Student accommodation
H/DC: Dwellings in the countryside Support but would stress the importance of ensuring that structures are sound.
H/RM: Residential moorings
H/RC: Residential caravans
H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People sites
H/CH: Community led housing Support and encouraged where there is no conflict with exception site policy.

Infrastructure policies
Policy Your comments
Infrastructure – general comments Agree there should be support for community led projects but should describe what form the support should take.

Infrastructure should be operational before occupation of new housing particularly the need to manage surface water runoff from hard surfaces to minimise the amount of sewage being released into the waterways
I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity Support but Improvements required to rural public transport and the last mile congestion into Cambridge City.
I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles Support for rural public charging points at community facilities
I/FD: Freight and delivery consolidation
I/SI: Safeguarding important infrastructure Support. Should also include disused railway lines with potential for future use.
I/AD: Aviation development Airfields are an important resource and difficult to replace. Local Plan should recognise the need for National Network of General Airfields.Government National Planning Policy Framework section 106.f, to ensure that planning decisions have regard to the importance of the national network of General Aviation airfields is clear. Environmental health concerns should be taken into account when deciding on housing location to avoid new occupants stress, disappointment and possible conflict.
I/EI: Energy infrastructure masterplanning
I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery Greater Cambridge is in a severely water stressed area and is causing environmental damage. Development should be curtailed until new water supply and sewage infrastructure is operational.
I/DI: Digital infrastructure Need for enhancement of mobile phone coverage in villages with poor reception by well sited and suitably camouflaged masts.

Supporting documents on which we are consulting
Policy Your comments
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment)
Habitats Regulations Assessment

Firstly, the Form To Assist gives a comment column for Vision and Aims.
We have numerous comments to make under this heading but I have not been able to locate this on the online system.
Secondly, the online system asks "Did you raise the matter that is the subject of your representation with the LPA earlier in the process?"
Guilden Morden Parish Council have not been involved earlier in the process. I have therefore clicked "No" but the system will not allow me to proceed further.
The online system allows only 100 words for each comment and to summarise the comments to avoid exceeding 100 words. It would have been helpful if the Form To Assist had stated that.
Vision and development strategy
Section / Policy Your comments
Vision and aims 1.Guilden MordenParish Council has concerns that the increase in population resulting from the additional homes target of 44,000 will have a negative impact on an already struggling traffic, school and healthcare infrastructure.
Specifically on traffic and congestion:
Commuting into and out of Cambridge at peak times already attracts significant congestion and delay for commuters.
This not only effects commuting by car but also bus and the Park&Ride buses as these typically use the same roads as the other commuters and the bus lane network doesn’t extend to where it’s needed.
Links between the train stations and the city centre are also currently inadequate and equally effected by commuter congestion.
The guided busway is too infrequent to be a viable alternative and typically the Park& Ride parking is at capacity leaving commuters with little alternative other than to drive into the city centre.
All of the above describes the current situation which will clearly be significantly worsened by the addition of 44,000 homes by 2041.
2. Is the methodology used in arriving at the figure of 44,000 defendable?

How much development, and where – general comments Support that the proposed developments are to be in major clusters in areas with good public transport.
S/JH: New jobs and homes
S/DS: Development strategy Support to the extent that development should be very restricted in smaller rural villages with limited public transport.
S/SH: Settlement hierarchy Support. Guilden Morden is a group village and should remain in this category. It is well down the sustainability hierarchy.
S/SB: Settlement boundaries Support. Tightly drawn development boundaries are important to reduce encroachment into the countryside.

Cambridge urban area
Policy Your comments
Cambridge urban area - general comments
S/NEC: North East Cambridge
S/AMC: Areas of Major Change
S/OA: Opportunity Areas in Cambridge
S/LAC: Land allocations in Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge
Policy Your comments
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
S/CE: Cambridge East
S/NWC: North West Cambridge
S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus
S/WC: West Cambridge
S/EOC: Other existing allocations on the edge of Cambridge

New settlements
Policy Your comments
New settlements - general comments
S/CB: Cambourne
S/NS: Existing new settlements

Rural southern cluster
Policy Your comments
Rural southern cluster - general comments
S/GC: Genome Campus, Hinxton
S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster

Rest of the rural area
Policy Your comments
Rest of the rural area - general comments
S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area
S/RRP: Policy areas in the rest of the rural area

Climate change
Policy Your comments
Climate change - general comments Future development and trends will increase the use of electricity. Where might this be generated locally by solar and/or wind?
CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings Support
CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments Absolutely necessary
CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management Infrastructure should be operational before housing occupation
CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure Support for community led projects but should include access to funding
CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
CC/CS: Supporting land based carbon sequestration

Biodiversity and green spaces
Policy Your comments
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity Biodiversity Net Gain conditions should include developer funds for monitoring and remedial action if required
BG/GI: Green infrastructure Support for recognition of pollinator corridors. Strategic Green Infrastructure should include protection and enhancement of chalk aquifer spring line.
BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population Support
BG/RC: River corridors Support
BG/PO: Protecting open spaces Support
BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces Support

Wellbeing and inclusion
Policy Your comments
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
WS/CF: Community, sports, and leisure facilities Support
WS/MU: Meanwhile uses during long term redevelopments
WS/IO: Creating inclusive employment and business opportunities through new developments
WS/HS: Pollution, health and safety

Great places policies
Policy Your comments
Great places – general comments
GP/PP: People and place responsive design Support
GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character Support. Need to ensure protection of landscape setting of villages and penetration of countryside gaps as an important element of character.
GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
GP/QD: Achieving high quality development Support
GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm Support
GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets Support
GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
GP/PH8: Protection of Public Houses Support

Jobs policies
Policy Your comments
Jobs – general comments
J/NE: New employment development proposals
J/RE: Supporting the rural Economy Support
J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land Support
J/PB: Protecting existing business space
J/RW: Enabling remote working Support
J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries
J/EP: Supporting a range of facilities in employment parks
J/RC: Retail and centres
J/VA: Visitor accommodation, attractions and facilities
J/FD: Faculty development and specialist / language schools

Homes policies
Policy Your comments
Homes – general comments
H/AH: Affordable housing
H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing Support but all types of sites should retain local connection and permanence criteria
H/HM: Housing mix
H/HD: Housing density
H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots Support
H/SS: Residential space standards and accessible homes
H/SH: Specialist housing and homes for older people
H/CB: Self- and custom-build homes
H/BR: Build to rent homes
H/MO: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
H/SA: Student accommodation
H/DC: Dwellings in the countryside Support
H/RM: Residential moorings
H/RC: Residential caravans
H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People sites
H/CH: Community led housing Support

Infrastructure policies
Policy Your comments
Infrastructure – general comments Agree there should be support for community led projects but should describe what form the support should take.
Infrastructure should be operational before occupation of new housing particularly the need to manage surface water runoff fromhard surfacesto minimise the amount of sewage being released into the waterways
I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity Support but improvements required rural public transport and congestion into Cambridge (see comments under Vision and Aims)
I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles Support
I/FD: Freight and delivery consolidation
I/SI: Safeguarding important infrastructure Support
I/AD: Aviation development Support
I/EI: Energy infrastructure master planning
I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery Greater Cambridge is in a severely water stressed area and is causing environmental damage. Development should be curtailed until new water supply and sewage infrastructure is operational.
I/DI: Digital infrastructure Need for enhancement of mobile phone coverage in villages with poor reception by well sited and suitably camouflaged masts.

This is of paramount importance.

Taylor Wimpey are supportive of the provision of facilities to support new development and residents, but would like to make some comments on the wording of the policy to minimise any uncertainty.
The policy states that ‘the Local Plan will require appropriate community, cultural, education, sports and leisure provision to meet the needs generated by new developments.’ Clarification should be provided as to the measure of what is deemed ‘appropriate’ and thresholds for whether this will be on-site contributions or off-site.
Related to this, the policy wording adds that ‘in large scale developments and new communities, community development strategies will be required, to explore how places will become communities, and how early residents will be supported’. The Council should quantify what is considered to be a ‘large scale development’ i.e. is this major development as defined by the NPPF, or is this a locally set measure.