GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge green belt

You are planning to relocate the Cambridge Sewage works to Honey Hill. Honey Hill is a valuable Green belt area. Residents from all surrounding villages use this area for recreation. I walk there weekly with my dog from Horningsea and see deer. Therefore removing this land from the Green Belt is contrary to policy BG/PO where you talk about protecting open spaces.

The policy should explicitly encourage the creation of areas within the Green Belt with enhanced biodiversity and, subject to other landscape concerns, specifically encourage the planting of trees to develop areas of deciduous woodland, orchards and scrubland.

Policy makes it clear that the purpose of Green Belt identified around Cambridge is to:
• Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre;
• Maintain and enhance the quality of its setting;
• Prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.

A Green Belt Review of Land off Beach Road has been undertaken. Having specific regard to the above purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt it is considered that this parcel of land only partial contributes to maintaining and enhancing the quality of its setting. On this basis it is concluded therefore that there would only be limited effect therefore from releasing the land from Green Belt for development.

1. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF confirms that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated as part of the preparation of a Local Plan. The preparation of the GCLP provides the opportunity for the Councils to consider undertaking a review of the Cambridge Green Belt in the context of the challenges and opportunities facing the area in respect of delivering housing and employment growth, whilst also reducing climate change.

2. Over the plan period and beyond, significant investment and growth will come forward in Greater Cambridge. The HERR recommends pursing a jobs target of between 58,500-78,700 a range of some 20,200 jobs – equivalent to a potential 12,100 additional homes on what is proposed in the First Proposals document. The growth of Greater Cambridge is driven by the following initiatives:
• The Greater Cambridge City Deal seeks to speed up housing delivering, create 45,000 new jobs and provide £1bn of local and national public sector investment.
• The Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) have confirmed that due the high levels of growth and ‘exceptional’ housing market conditions in Greater Cambridge, the Government will provide £100m housing and infrastructure fund to help deliver infrastructure for housing and growth and at least 2,000 affordable homes.
• The CPCA have confirmed that Central Government are to provide an additional £70m ring fenced for Cambridge to help meet the ‘exceptional’ housing needs of the city.
• The CPCA anticipate that economic output will increase by 100% over the next 25 years. The GVA of the area is estimated to increase from £22bn to over £40bn.
• Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire anchors the eastern end of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as defined by Central Government in March 2019. The Government have stated that the Arc area is an economic asset of international standing and can be influential to the performance of the national economy. The National Infrastructure Committee (NIC) found the Arc area to be home to UK’s most productive and fast-growing cities and has significant potential for transformative Growth. However, the growth and opportunity in this area is currently constrained by poor east-west infrastructure and a lack suitable housing. The Arc initiative aims to realise the full economic potential of the area by delivering significant new infrastructure and building up to 1 million new homes by 2050.

3. To accompany and support economic growth in Greater Cambridge the following major infrastructure improvements are either being planned or have started:
• The A14 road improvements between Huntingdon and Cambridge - Completed
• A new railway station close to Addenbrookes Hospital to the south of the city centre - Expected completion date 2025
• The duelling of the A428 between Black Cat Roundabout and Caxton Gibbet - Expected completion date 2026
• The delivery of East-West rail, which includes a Phase 3 link running between Bedford and Cambridge - Expected completion date 2030. As with the Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet A428 road improvements, the delivery of East-West forms key elements of Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

4. In light of all of the above Martin Grant Homes consider that there is a set of exceptional circumstances which clearly justifies Green Belt release as a spatial strategy. The Cambridgeshire Green Belt was defined many years ago and the opportunity can now be taken through the preparation of the GCLP to refresh those existing Green Belt boundaries. A strategy to release appropriate sites from the Green Belt, is supported by:
• The immediate need to deliver housing growth in order to support the aims and objectives of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.
• The need to deliver economic growth in Greater Cambridgeshire, which is of national importance to the UK economy and international importance to the innovation and education sector
• The requirement for the planning system to deliver all three dimensions of sustainable development (Paragraph 8 of the NPPF);
• The need for Plans and decisions to take into account local circumstances in order to achieve sustainable development (Paragraph 9 of the NPPF);
• The need for the planning system to be genuinely plan led (Paragraph 15 of the NPPF); and
• The need to ensure that planning proactively drives and supports sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, employment opportunities and thriving local places that the country needs (paragraph 82 of the NPPF)

5. The scale of economic and housing growth required in Greater Cambridge, as recommended by the HERR, is unlikely to be delivered in a sustainable manner without the suitable and evidenced release of Green Belt land. Accordingly, MGH welcomes and endorses the Councils decision to undertake a review of Green Belt boundaries as part of preparing the GCLP.

6. Page 39 of the First Proposals document states that the Councils do not consider that housing need alone provides exceptional circumstances to justify removing land from the Green Belt. MGH agrees with this conclusion as there is a broader and compelling case for exceptional circumstances in this case relating to economic growth and the unique circumstances and opportunity that Greater Cambridge is presented with.

7. The First Proposals documents seeks to make only one limited Green Belt release to support the development and growth of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. MGH contend that the opportunity and indeed need to make further limited and specific Green Belt release extends beyond this one site.

8. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF confirms that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities need to promote sustainable patterns of development. The NPPF goes on to states that “where it is has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously development and or is well-served by public transport”.

9. Paragraph 143 advises that the definition of Green Belt boundaries should ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development and not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. The GCLP is shaped by the requirement to meet housing needs, which we contend should be higher and align with the recommendations of the HERR. It is also contended that the current Development Strategy is not sound or robust in its approach to promoting a balanced and flexible housing supply and ensuring rural communities will thrive and sustain their existing service provision over the plan period.

10. To remedy the above-described flaws it is contended that housing growth should be distributed to established sustainable rural settlements which possess excellent public transport links. Having established that there is a compelling case for exceptional circumstances in Greater Cambridge there is a clear case to support small and focused Green Belt releases. Green Belt sites in combination with delivering other non-Green Belt sites will make a material contribution to meeting objectively assessed housing need, accommodating economic growth and delivering a flexible and balanced Development Strategy.

11. MGH are promoting ‘land at Ambrose Way, Impington’ for release from the Green Belt and subsequent allocation for residential development through the GCLP preparation process. Having set out our case that there is a need for further limited and specific Green Belt release it is now necessary to establish how the site itself meets the five purposes of Green Belt as set out at paragraph 138 of the NPPF. To this end MGH have commissioned consultant EDP to review findings of the Council’s Green Belt Study prepared by consultants LUC. In addition, EDP have also undertaken their own review of the site in the context of paragraph 138.

12. The EDP Green Belt Appraisal (GBA), is appended to these representations and evidences the following conclusions in respect of the Ambrose Way site’s contribution to the Green Belt purposes:
- Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Moderate.
- Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/No contribution
- Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Site Contribution is assessed as Moderate.
- Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Site Contribution is assessed as No Contribution.
- Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Site Contribution is assessed as n/a.

13. The detail underpinning the above listed conclusions is evidenced in the submitted GBA document. In light of the specific assessment against each Green Belt purpose the GBA provides an overarching conclusion which confirms that the Ambrose Way site provides a low contribution to the NPPF Green Belt purposes. In respect of bringing forward development at the site the Appraisal concludes that,
“development can occur in this location without compromising the fundamental aims of the NPPF to keep land permanently open and while continuing to serve the five of Green Belt at this northern edge of Histon and Impington; primarily to check the unrestricted sprawl, prevent merging of settlements and safeguard the countryside from encroachment.”

14. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF readily acknowledges that the plan making process can incorporate the review of existing Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances. Martin Grant Homes believe that exceptional circumstances exist to justify making limited and site-specific modifications to the Green Belt in order to deliver housing and employment sites needed to meet the needs of Greater Cambridge. Indeed, such modifications will allow a sustainable Development Strategy to come forward which will deliver a varied, flexible and robust housing supply and spread the benefits arising from sustainable development to rural areas, which in the main are not currently supported by the GCLP First Proposals.

15. The proposed distribution of new growth and allocations via the GCLP is a fundamentally flawed and will not deliver a varied, flexible and robust housing supply or spread the benefits arising from sustainable development to rural areas.

16. Sustainable sites for housing growth which are found to not contribute to the five purposes of the Green Belt should be released and subsequently allocated for development. It is strongly contested that this is the case for the Land at Ambrose Way, Impington. The evidenced and justified release of this land from the Green Belt will allow development to come forward which will meet the objectives of achieving sustainable development as set out at paragraph 8 of the NPPF and assist in supporting economic growth which is of regional and national importance.

This policy rightly recognises that Cambridge Green Belt plays an important role in maintaining the special qualities of Cambridge as a historic city and the surrounding area. National planning policy reiterates the importance of protecting Green Belt for its openness and permanence and it is recognised that Cambridge's capacity for growth is constrained by its Green Belt designation. The NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries can be reviewed in response to the need for sustainable development where exceptional circumstances exist and that the process for doing so should be through the preparation of a Local Plan (Paragraph 140 of the NPPF). In addition, Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt land may exist where all other reasonable alternatives for meeting identified needs have been fully examined. This includes the following:
“a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.” (NPPF Paragraph 141)

Marshall’s representations to the ‘Development Strategy’ section identify that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan could go further and be more ambitious in relation to its growth targets if the economic potential of the Greater Cambridge area is to be truly realised, in line with the commitments in the Devolution Deal and as outlined in the CPIER. In the first instance, in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 141, the GCSP should seek to optimise the density of development on non-Green Belt land and, as identified in our representations, there is an opportunity to further optimise the development on the safeguarded land at Cambridge East.

In the longer-term, Marshall considers there is potential to build on the excellent accessibility of the location and to extend development to the east of Airport Way without causing harm to the character of the City of the function of the Green Belt. The development would be landscape-led and will incorporate a green infrastructure strategy that responds to the site’s setting and protects surrounding Green Belt land.

If land is to be released from the Green Belt to accommodate future needs, land to the east of the Airport is a primary candidate due to the accessibility of the site and the excellent sustainability benefits that could be generated. Although the Green Belt Assessment (2021), which supports the Local Plan, identifies areas east of Airport Way as ‘Very high’ harm rating to the Green Belt, this is the same of land on all sides of Cambridge. Actually, when the contribution that land east of Airport Way makes to each of the separate purposes that were considered in the Assessment, it is clear that land on other sides of the City are more sensitive and are of a higher landscape quality. The Green Belt studies / assessments that were prepared from 2002 onwards in support of the previous and current adopted Local Plans all recognised that land to the east of Airport Way has landscape value and is important to the setting of Cambridge. This was true, however, of all Green Belt land around Cambridge. What these studies appeared to indicate is that releasing land to the east of the city would have a lesser impact in Green Belt terms than directing development towards more sensitive edges of the City. It is felt that perhaps the rating of ‘very high’ level of harm in this latest Green Belt Assessment is not wholly accurate or consistent with previous Green Belt reviews, and should be re-considered, particularly taking into account the GCP’s intention to relocate the Park and Ride into this area.

Marshall are very mindful of the need to respect the setting and separation of existing communities surrounding the site, particularly Teversham and Cherry Hinton. Proposals for Cambridge East will be sensitive to this and will be compatible with Green Belt objectives in this regard. However overall, when considering the sensitivities of Green Belt land around Cambridge as a whole, the east of Cambridge is considered to be less sensitive in Green Belt terms than other locations around the edge of Cambridge and the release of land here, as part of a comprehensively planned urban expansion, would maximise the scale of the opportunity and secure additional benefits from the synergy which the land can have with development of Cambridge East.

The consultation document proposes that Policy GP/GB will reiterate the importance that the NPPF places on Green Belt. It states that:
“The Greater Cambridge Local Plan will include the established local purposes of the
Cambridge Green Belt, which are to:
• preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre;
• maintain and enhance the quality of its setting;
• prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.
Enhancement of the Green Belt, such as for recreation and biodiversity, will also be supported.”

This section of the consultation document and the associated Great Places Topic Paper refers to the previous ‘First Conversation’ discussions regarding whether or not land should be released from the Green Belt to allow for development in sustainable locations. We note that the ‘First Proposals’ consultation is proposing land for release from the Green Belt through the local plan review. This includes Green Belt land in villages such as Gt Shelford, Sawston and Oakington. It should also include the release of land at our proposed development site at ‘Land east of Cambridge Road, Hardwick’ (Site No. 40414).

Terence O’Rourke has undertaken a Green Belt Review (December 2021) which is submitted in support of the above proposed site allocation and the land’s release from the outer edge of the Cambridge Green Belt. The Terence O’Rourke report sets out the following important evidence:

• Stage 1 - a general commentary on the LUC Green Belt Assessment that has been undertaken on behalf of the Councils. It identifies where there are weaknesses, oversights and omissions.
• Stage 2 – a critique of the LUC Assessment in relation to the parcels in which the proposed development Site (No. 40414) is located.
• Stage 3 – re-visiting the Terence O’Rourke Green Belt Assessment (2019), and how the proposed concept masterplan for the Site (including mitigation strategies) respond to the Green Belt.

The reassessment includes looking carefully at the NPPF and Cambridge Green Belt purposes in the context of the Site area – rather than Parcel HA4 as a whole (as defined by LUC). The reassessment work confirms that, unlike other areas of the Green Belt, the Site does not contribute to Cambridge Green Belt purpose 1 and provides only a relatively limited contribution for Cambridge Green Belt purposes 2 and 3. It will have only a minor-moderate impact on adjacent Green Belt if released and would create only moderate overall harm if released. However, this moderate harm would be further reduced by the considerable mitigation measures being proposed within the concept masterplan for the Site, as set out in the Development Framework (Vision) Document (December 2021).

LUC assessed the overall harm of releasing parcel HA4 from Green Belt as creating ‘high harm’. However, in using the LUC criteria to reassess the harm that Site No. 40414 would create if released from Green Belt, Terence O’Rourke’s Review considers that this falls within the ‘moderate harm’ category, two levels of harm lower than LUC’s assessment for the whole of parcel HA4. The Review also concludes that creating a new woodland edge to the development could become a new strong defensible Green Belt boundary, and that this mitigation would assist in reducing the harm further, should the Site be released from Green Belt.

Refer to response to Policy S/EOC

Cambridge Past, Present & Future strongly supports the green belt purposes.

We also support the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment but raise concerns that some historic buildings were omitted during the assessment despite the fact that they could potentially contribute towards the historic setting of Cambridge.

CBC Limited and the landowners support the recognition that land may be taken out of the Green Belt adjacent to the Campus to meet local, regional and national healthcare, biomedical and research and development needs. Expansion of the Campus satisfies national policy tests for removal of Green Belt land – the importance of Cambridge Biomedical Campus to the region, the national economy and to the Oxford-Cambridge Arc provide the exceptional circumstances needed.

Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt has formed one of the overarching principles of the Spatial Vision for the expansion of the Campus. Development is to be landscape-led, with investment in landscaping, biodiversity and green infrastructure which can enhance the setting of Cambridge. The expansion of the Campus within the Area of Major Change can preserve the unique character of Cambridge, whilst maintaining and strongly enhancing the quality of its setting.

Parcel GI8 within the Council’s Green Belt Assessment does identify that land west of Oakington Road, Girton would have some localised and somewhat moderate impacts upon the Green Belt. The conclusion of a high level of harm does not follow the analysis and furthermore parcel GI9 to the north is relevant given that this constrains the harm in respect of the eastern area of Parcel GI8. The parcel should be re-assessed as 2 individual parcels with a split applied along the Beck Brook. The land between the Beck Brook and Oakington Road will create considerably less harm that the overall parcel given the containment in visual terms and this would be confirmed should the Council undertake the assessment above.

We strongly support maintaining the greenbelt. Development of it is only ever appropriate for uses other than housing, e.g. re-wilding or supplying access to green spaces. Developers have a vested interest in representing their proposals as ‘sustainable’, however any housing or building development on greenbelt land is necessarily at odds with the aims of this policy and I do not support it.
The ‘harm rating’ determined in the greenbelt assessments must be recorded within HELAA report assessment as a red-amber-green flag. Else, impact on the green belt is ignored in comparison to the other areas which do attract flag ratings.

The Green belt status of the land west of Impington should be protected.
This is necessary for the village to maintain its character and remain a separate village, with a unique character, surrounded by fields, rather than be swallowed by Cambridge city.
Proposals for a large development here are completely out of character with the rest of the village and will greatly increase traffic through a quiet residential area.
The land is prone to flooding and development will increase flood risk to the existing homes and put strain on an already struggling GP practice.

The site is located within the village of Stapleford, outside of the village’s Development Framework and
within the Cambridge Green Belt. Representations were submitted to the Issues and Options 2020
consultation to present the initial case for the site’s removal from the Green Belt and were accompanied
by a commentary note that provided an initial consideration of the site’s contribution to the purposes of
the Green Belt.
These representations relate only to the site’s Green Belt designation and continue to support the case
for the site’s removal from the Green Belt.
Policy GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
The proposed policy direction of Policy GP/GB seeks to protect land within the Green Belt in accordance
with national policy. It also identifies the established local purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt. In
addition to the five purposes of the Green Belt, which are set out in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) (2021) at paragraph 138, the Cambridge Green Belt has particular purposes and
was established to protect the historic city and its setting.
The purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, are to:
● Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic
centre;
● Maintain and enhance the quality of its setting;
● Prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.
As part of the preparation of the Local Plan, all land within the Green Belt should be thoroughly examined
to assess whether land within the Green Belt still serves the five purposes as set out in the NPFF and the
three local purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt. Where it is demonstrated that land no longer meets
these national and local purposes, or the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, which is to prevent urban
Greenhedge Farm, Stapleford – GCLP Preferred Options Consultation 2021 Representations
Page 2
sprawl by keeping land permanently open (NPPF paragraph 137), the Green Belt boundaries as shown
on the Proposals Map should be altered in the emerging Local Plan accordingly.
Representations regarding Greenhedge Farm’s compliance with the NPPF’s purposes of the Green Belt
were submitted as part of the Issues and Options 2020 consultation. These representations were
accompanied by a commentary note (Appendix A) that provided an initial consideration of the site’s
contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. The note identifies the following preliminary
considerations:
● The existing built form and surrounding mature planting provides an opportunity to reconsider the
Green Belt boundary in this location;
● The site should not be assessed in isolation, the Green Belt review should also consider the
adjoining land. However, it is considered that the southern parcels have a stronger connection to the
surrounding built form which lessens their contribution to the Green Belt;
● Discrete areas within the site, particularly the southern parcels, have different degrees of enclosure
due to built form and tree cover. As such, they have less ‘visual openness’;
● The site is not located between villages nor does in contribute to the separation of settlements;
● The site, due to its location and scale, is not considered to relate to the contribution of the Green Belt
to the setting and character of Cambridge.
This initial analysis begins to demonstrate that the site may no longer contribute to the fundamental aim
of Green Belt policy nor the five purposes of the Green Belt. The note strongly recommended that a full
Green Belt review is undertaken and that the site’s contribution to each purpose of the Green Belt is
assessed.
It is also considered that the site:
● Does not check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – it is surrounded on all four
boundaries by built development, with three of those boundaries comprising the development
framework of Stapleford. The removal of the site from the Green Belt would therefore not lead to
unrestricted sprawl;
● Does not prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the site is not located between
towns or villages and is enclosed by the existing built development of Stapleford. The removal of the
site from the Green Belt would not result in the coalescence of adjoining settlements;
● Does not contribute to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the site is surrounded on
all four boundaries by built development and whilst located outside of the development framework, is
not considered to encroach on the countryside that is beyond the settlement pattern; and
● Does not preserve the setting and special character of a historic town – it is considered that the
removal of the site from the Green Belt would not impact on the setting and character of the
Stapleford Conservation Area given the distance and intervening built form between the site and the
Conservation Area. Furthermore, due to its location and scale, the site is not considered to relate to
the contribution of the Green Belt to the setting and character of Cambridge.
The evidence base for the Preferred Options consultation includes the Greater Cambridge Green Belt
Assessment 2021. The Green Belt Assessment is a comprehensive study, which provides a robust
assessment that:
● Identifies variations in openness and the extent to which land contributes to the purposes of the
Green Belt; and
Greenhedge Farm, Stapleford – GCLP Preferred Options Consultation 2021 Representations
Page 3
● Uses this to determine variations in the potential harm to those Green Belt purposes of releasing land
within Greater Cambridge from the designation.
Appendix B of the Green Belt Assessment includes a detailed contribution and harm assessment of all
land within the Cambridge Green Belt. Greenhedge Farm has been assessed as part of the study as site
reference GS 10. The assessment of the site is included at Appendix B of these representations.
The assessment of the site presents supportive evidence for its removal from the Green Belt. In relation
to the site’s contribution to the Cambridge Green Belt purposes, it finds the following:
● Purpose One: Land is open and is adjacent to Great Shelford, which is contiguous with Cambridge
but which retains a degree of distinction from the main City area. There is weak distinction between
the parcel and the urban area, which decreases the extent to which development would be perceived
as diminishing Cambridge's compact character. Overall, the parcel makes a relatively limited
contribution to Cambridge Purpose 1. Contribution: Relatively limited.
● Purpose Two: Land has a weak distinction from the edge of Great Shelford/Stapleford, meaning it
has a strong relationship with the inset area. However, it is open and land use within the majority of
the parcel is not associated with the urban area, and therefore has some rural character. It has a use
to the north-east (Stapleford/Jubilee Pavilion) and south (allotments) that associate with the inset
area and weaken its rural character. It does not form or contain any specific features/aspects that
contribute to the quality of Cambridge’s setting. Overall the parcel makes a limited contribution to
Cambridge Purpose 2. Contribution: Limited /no contributions and
● Purpose Three: Land is too closely contained by the settlement of Great Shelford to contribute to its
separation from Cambridge. Contribution: Limited / no contribution.
The Council’s assessment concludes with the following statement regarding the overall harm of releasing
the land from the Green Belt.
Parcel GS10 makes a relatively limited contribution to preserving Cambridge's compact character. The
additional impact on the adjacent Green Belt of the release of the parcel would be negligible. Therefore,
the harm resulting from its release, as an expansion of Cambridge, would be low.
Overall, the Local Plan evidence clearly demonstrates that the site makes at best a relatively limited or
limited contribution to the Cambridge Green Belt and in terms of purposes two and three it makes no
contribution at all. In addition, its release would have negligible harm on the adjacent Green Belt and a
low harm overall. The Council’s own evidence, alongside that prepared by Peterhouse, clearly points in
favour of releasing the site from the Green Belt.
It is important that any retained Green Belt fulfils the purposes of the Green Belt in order to have a
robust, long-term and defensible Green Belt. The Green Belt Assessment undertaken as part of the
Councils’ evidence base clearly demonstrates that the site makes little to no contribution to the national
or local purposes of the Green Belt. In this case the Local Plan process must take the opportunity to
review and amend the Green Belt boundary to remove the site from the Green Belt in the preparation of
the Proposals Maps. A more appropriate designation for the site would be that of open countryside
outside of the village’s Development Framework. As such, it would act to strengthen a more logical and
defensible Green Belt boundary to Stapleford.

The categorisation of sites at Great Shelford are supported. Specifically, the continued acknowledgement that the release of HELAA site 40413 at Cambridge Road, Great Shelford would have a negligible/low impact on the function of the Cambridge Green Belt.

It is important that the results of the GB assessment 2021 (as further evidenced by the 2015 Inner Green Belt Study) are fully acknowledged through the HELAA. Where sites have been concluded to cause medium to high levels of harm to the Green Belt if released, these should be protected from development. Exceptional circumstances to release a specific site should not exist in situations where an alternative site at the same settlement has a lower level of harm harm is suitable and available for development.

The proposals at Whittlesford will be protect and enhance the Green Belt as described in section 6 of the main representation, and illustrated and analysed in the Design Vision and Environmental Appraisal appendices already submitted in the section on RSC.

It has been clear for a long time that one of the most valued aspects of living in or near Cambridge are the large areas of green space within the city. Obvious examples are Parker’s Piece, Jesus Green, Midsummer Common and The Backs, but there are numerous other small areas of green space that make Cambridge an attractive place to live and work.

In order for these green spaces to have survived for hundreds of years as Cambridge has grown, people have had to actively take the decision not to develop these areas, but to preserve them for future generations.

GSPC is concerned that many recent developments and many of those proposed in the First Proposals do not address this aspect adequately. Indeed, GSPC is very concerned that the developments in and around Great Shelford could threaten the very significant amount of green space and rural environment around our village. Two areas of particular concern are:
1. The ‘green finger’ between Great Shelford and the A1307 that extends from the Gog Magog Hills all the way into Cambridge at the Botanical Gardens.
2. The area of Stone Hill between Cambridge Road, Great Shelford and the River Cam.

Members would welcome proposals to protect these areas in perpetuity. Unfortunately, we believe that the developments in the First Proposals threaten these sites, if not directly then by a slow creep towards these areas.

The National Trust supports this policy and notes that it will reflect national planning policy. The Cambridge Green Belt has proved effective at protecting the historic landscape setting of the city of Cambridge for some 50 years.

We acknowledge that there are some limited circumstances where development is acceptable, or where very special circumstances are clearly demonstrated which might outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

Green Belts have the potential to deliver much more public benefit. We would like to see the quality of land improved for people and for nature, with more space for wildlife and better access for those living in nearby cities and towns. Green Belt land could also play an important role in helping the UK tackle climate change and
reduce the risk of flooding in urban areas.

The review of the Green Belt is welcomed as there is a compelling need for Greater Cambridge to release some land from the Green Belt to provide the opportunity for sustainable development. However, the results from the ‘Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment 2021’ provide a significantly different assessment of a number of parcels of land compared to that of the Council’s previous evidence (2012 Inner Green Belt Boundary Study).

The parcels of land labelled within the assessment as CHI1, CHI2, CHI3, CHI4, FU1, FU19, TE6, TE7, TE8 TE9 have been assessed as either ‘Very High, High and Moderate High’ in terms of the level of impact that the release of these parcels for development would have.

This assessment conflicts with the Councils’ previous evidence (2012 Inner Green Belt Boundary Study) whereby ‘Plan 4 – Areas of Significance of Development on Green Belt’, assesses the same parcels of land as either ‘medium’ or ‘low significance’. This resulted in part of the site being the lowest significance of all the Green Belt around Cambridge. The five principles of the Green Belt as defined within the NPPF remain unchanged in the past 10 years therefore in the context of this site, it is unclear why the classification has changed, and with a much clearer and more robust justification for the change in classification needing to be provided. It is also noted that the vast majority of Green Belt parcels within the ‘inner green belt area’ around Cambridge have been identified as resulting in ‘High-Harm’. Such a blanket conclusion does not appear to reflect the differences in context around the city. Further clarification is needed.

Whilst we largely agree with the Greater Places policies, we believe a more extensive review of the Green Belt should be carried out to include sites such as the land west of Station Road, Fulbourn, which represents an excellent location for sustainable development.

The Green Belt provides an important role in preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and serving the five purposes set out in paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework namely:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

A comprehensive review of the original 2012 Green Belt Review should be undertaken as part of the evidence base underpinning the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In many instances there may be opportunities to release land currently within the Green Belt, which plays a limited role in serving the five purposes set out in the NPPF, such as the land west of Station Road, Fulbourn.

Given the geography of Greater Cambridge, in which many of the most sustainable parts of the spatial planning area are located within the Green Belt, it is considered that some Green Belt release should form part of the overall spatial strategy.

In this way, the area can help to reduce travel distances and help facilitate sustainability through the provision of sustainable transport infrastructure.

The important role that the Green Belt plays is acknowledged, however a flexible approach needs to be taken where sites such as land west of Station Road, Fulbourn benefit from their proximity to existing frequent public transport (with a bus stop just 100 metres south of the site). The proposed Fulbourn Greenway being bought forward by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) would also to provide high quality sustainable transport infrastructure to further improve connectivity.

In addition, the land west of Station Road, Fulbourn presents opportunities for Green Belt release that would help to enable a sustainable large village such as Fulbourn to grow in a sustainable manner.

The site itself is very well-contained and provides a very limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes.
The site is surround on 3 sides by housing development, and the railway and industrial area to its northern edge.

Its release would play no role in facilitating unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and would not result in towns merging into one another.

While it would play a limited role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, it is an exceptionally well-contained site with residential development on its western, southern, and eastern boundaries, and the Cambridge to Newmarket railway line providing a clear defensible boundary along its northern side.

The land west of Station Road, Fulbourn should be released from the Green Belt.

The review of the Green Belt is welcomed as there is a compelling need for Greater Cambridge to release some land from the Green Belt to provide the opportunity for sustainable development. However, the results from the 'Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment 2021' provide a significantly different assessment of a number of parcels of land compared to that of the Council's previous evidence (2012 Inner Green Belt Boundary Study).

The parcels of land labelled within the assessment as CHll, CHl2, CHl3, CHl4, FUl, FU19, TE6, TE7, TE8 TE9 have been assessed as either 'Very High, High and Moderate High' in terms of the level of impact that the release of these parcels for development would have.

This assessment conflicts with the Councils' previous evidence (2012 Inner Green Belt Boundary Study) whereby 'Plan 4 - Areas of Significance of Development on Green Belt', assesses the same parcels of land as either 'medium' or 'low significance'. This resulted in part of the site being the lowest significance of all the Green Belt around Cambridge. The five principles of the Green Belt as defined within the NPPF remain unchanged in the past 10 years therefore in the context of this site, it is unclear why the classification has changed, and with a much clearer and more robust justification for the change in classification needing to be provided. It is also noted that the vast majority of Green Belt parcels within the 'inner green belt area' around Cambridge have been identified as resulting in 'High­ Harm'. Such a blanket conclusion does not appear to reflect the differences in context around the city. Further clarification is needed.

Great places policies
71. CPRE supports the principles expressed in this section and its accompanying policies. Indeed, we are
pleased to see expressed the established local purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, which are to:
• preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic
centre
• maintain and enhance the quality of its setting
• prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the
city.
72. However, CPRE does not believe that the draft Local Plan is adhering to these principles, particularly in the
case of proposals to remove several sites from the Green Belt.
73. We are also concerned that some of the developments that have already occurred around Cambridge are
visually intrusive and, in some cases, aesthetically unappealing. We would not want to see these mistakes
repeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Site Assessment and the need for Heritage Impact Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which sites require HIA?

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

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

included in the updated policy wording.

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

b) Policy Wording for sites

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

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

c) Edge of Cambridge sites

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

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

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

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

d) Historic Environment Policy

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

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

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

e) Design Policy

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

f) Tall Buildings Study and Policy

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

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

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

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

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

g) Other Supporting Evidence

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

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

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

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

Historic England – Ox Cam research work

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

Other comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this fit in with the settlement boundaries?

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.

This is critically important.

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above in your letter dated 1 November 2021.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England’s key comments
We are pleased that many of our comments at the Issues and Options stage, in our letter dated 24 February 2020 (ref. 304246), are reflected in the First Proposals Plan, helping to strengthen the Plan’s approach to the ‘big themes’ including climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion. Natural England supports the general thrust of the Plan in directing development to where it will have least environmental impact and provide opportunities for enhancements.

Natural England’s previous advice highlighted the need for the Plan to address uncertainties relating to water resources and infrastructure needed to support new growth, in light of evidence that current levels of abstraction are already damaging the natural environment. We also signalled the need for the establishment of a strategic green infrastructure network that is resilient to the scale of proposed Plan development, capable of meeting people’s needs and addressing adverse impacts to the natural environment. We therefore welcome that the First Proposals Plan recognises the challenges in identifying long-term and interim solutions to the current water resource crisis to enable sustainable development without further detriment to the natural environment. We support the Plan’s progress, through the Green Infrastructure Recommendations (LUC, September 2021), in presenting opportunities for the Plan to deliver /contribute towards delivery of strategic green infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the above, Natural England believes significant additional work is required through the next stages of Plan preparation to progress these ‘solutions’ and demonstrate that development can be delivered sustainably. We have major concerns with the scale of proposed Plan development, and the 2041 timeframe for delivery, given the damage already being inflicted on the natural environment and the lengthy lead-in time for identification and delivery of measures to address the water resource issue and to implement strategic green infrastructure. Some of this Plan development is already progressing, through the adopted strategy, prior to solutions being identified and implemented; the natural environment is already being impacted. The Plan should consider how these impacts and spiralling environmental deterioration can be retrospectively

mitigated.

The section on ‘Ensuring a Deliverable Plan – Water Supply’ recognises the challenge relating to water resources; however, the Councils need to act urgently, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to identify strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions to ensure any level of proposed development is delivered sustainably. There are currently no measures in place to mitigate the adverse effects of current development on the natural environment i.e., more water is being abstracted from the aquifer to serve this development, depleting groundwater resources and causing further declines in the condition of designated sites and supporting habitat.

Potential solutions to address Greater Cambridge’s green infrastructure deficit, and the recreational pressure effects of development, lie within the Green Infrastructure Initiatives identified in LUC’s Opportunity Mapping Recommendations Report. Natural England fully supports the Initiatives identified; however, these aspirational areas must be progressed into real projects that are happening on the ground by the time the Plan is adopted. Robust Plan policy requirements should secure funding for the delivery and long-term management of these projects from all major development.

We have provided additional comments on the Plan’s key themes and policies below; however, reference should be made to the detailed advice provided in our response to the Issues and Options consultation.

Vision and aims
We support the Plan vision and aims for decreases in our climate impacts and increase in quality of life for communities, minimising carbon emissions and reliance on the private car, increases in nature, wildlife, greenspaces and safeguarding landscapes focusing on what is unique to Greater Cambridge embracing bold new approaches.

Natural England strongly recommends that the vision should advocate a more holistic approach to securing multi-functional benefits through the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. In accordance with paragraphs 17 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the Plan should encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that land can deliver a wide range of ecosystem services required for sustainable development including climate change mitigation, flood management, improved water resources and water quality, biodiversity net gain, accessible high quality green infrastructure and associated health and wellbeing benefits, enhanced landscapes and soil resources.

The Plan should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services, considering a natural capital evidence approach and making strong links to the Nature Recovery Network and the Cambridge Nature Network. National Habitats Network mapping is available to view at www.magic.defra.gov.uk.

Development Strategy
The Plan will deliver around 44,400 new homes and provide for approximately 58,500 new jobs. We welcome that the new development strategy aims to meet our increased need for new homes in a way that minimises environmental impacts and improves the wellbeing of our communities.
The strategy proposes 19 additional sites for development, along with sites already allocated in the adopted 2018 Local Plans, along with associated infrastructure including green spaces.

We support proposals to direct development to where it has the least climate impact, where active and public transport is the natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development, and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live. The vision includes creating new city neighbourhoods which have the critical mass of homes, jobs and services to create thriving communities, making best use of brownfield and safeguarded land and making the most of public transport links.

Natural England welcomes the use of evidence including the Employment Land and Economic Development Evidence Study and the Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships

Report to understand the relationship between future jobs and housing growth. We note that these studies found that planning for the standard method housing figure set by government would not support the number of jobs expected to arise between 2020 and 2041. Planning for this housing figure would risk increasing the amount of longer distance commuting into Greater Cambridge, with the resulting impacts on climate change and congestion. On this basis planning for a higher jobs figure and planning for government’s standard method local housing need figure have been rejected as reasonable alternatives.

We note that high-level consideration has been given to the potential impacts of COVID-19 on the economy of Greater Cambridge, to inform this First Proposals consultation. We support the proposal to gather evidence to consider the potential longer-term quantitative impacts of COVID- 19 prior to the Draft Plan stage to understand any implications for the objectively assessed need for jobs and homes for the plan.

Natural England has no objection in principle to the proposed Plan development strategy; however, this is subject to: 1) the identification of strategic water supply solutions and / or interim measures; and 2) development of deliverable strategic GI initiatives and developer requirements and funding mechanisms being secured through the Plan.

Policy S/DS: Development strategy
Figure 6: Map shows proposed sites to be included in the Plan including existing planning permissions alongside a limited number of new sites in the most sustainable locations. We welcome that the sustainability merits, opportunities and constraints for each of the nine potential strategy choices have been considered through the Sustainability Appraisal. Alongside considering the best locations for new homes and jobs, consideration has also been given to the best locations to restore the area’s habitat networks and provide more green spaces for people providing health and wellbeing benefits. Natural England fully supports the identification of 14 Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiatives, through the Green Infrastructure evidence, to help achieve this. We welcome the approach to preparing the preferred development strategy / draft allocations and green infrastructure initiatives in parallel.

We support the general policy direction to focus development where it will have the least climate impact, where it can be aligned with active and public transport, opportunities for delivery of green infrastructure and where jobs, services and facilities can be located nearby whilst ensuring all necessary utilities can be provided in a sustainable way. We support the approach to using less land for development to reduce carbon emissions and allow more space for nature and wildlife.
The strategy focuses on opportunities to use brownfield land and opportunities created by proposed major new infrastructure.

We note that delivery of the adopted strategy is progressing well with development permitted/underway /completed at the edge of Cambridge sites and new settlement sites including Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town. Natural England is aware that these schemes are being delivered in the absence of adequate sustainable water supply infrastructure to serve the development without adverse impact to the natural environment including statutorily designated sites. Many of these schemes are also unlikely to deliver sufficient level of accessible high quality green infrastructure to meet the needs of new residents without adverse recreational pressure impacts to the existing ecological network including statutorily designated sites. These issues need to be addressed urgently through further stages of Plan preparation as discussed in our advice above and below.

Ensuring a deliverable plan – water supply
We welcome the Councils’ recognition that water supply is a significant issue for the deliverability of the Local Plan and we fully support preparation of the Integrated Water Management Study: Outline Water Cycle (WCS) by Stantec (August 2021) to address this. The WCS has identified the need for new strategic water supply infrastructure, such as a new fens reservoir, to provide for longer term needs, and to protect the integrity of the chalk aquifer south of Cambridge, in addition to a range of interim demand management measures. The draft Sustainability Appraisal also identifies significant environmental impacts if the issue is not resolved. This is a major concern for

Natural England in light of proposed growth levels and the damaging effects that groundwater abstraction is already having on the natural environment including water-dependent designated sites and important chalk stream habitats. Natural England has provided its detailed advice on this matter, and highlighted the statutorily designated sites potentially affected, in our response to the consultation on the WCS. These ‘Designated Sites of Concern’ are listed in Appendix B of the August 2021 report.

We are aware that Water Resources East is currently preparing its Water Management Plan for the region and that this will help to identify long-term measures to address the issue. However, these strategic measures, including a new fens reservoir, are unlikely to be available until the 2030’s hence interim measures are required to enable some level of sustainable growth. We welcome the suggestion of including Plan policies to phase delivery of development that can be supported by a sustainable water supply until new strategic infrastructure is in place; however, it will need to be clearly demonstrated that interim solutions are sustainable and will not cause further environmental decline. The risk is that it may not be possible to demonstrate delivery of the full objectively assessed needs within the plan period.

Natural England appreciates that pressure on water supplies is a regional issue. We share the Councils’ aspirations that the water industry, supported by government, will set out its intentions for positively addressing this key infrastructure issue at an early point in the ongoing plan making process, to provide confidence that adequate water supply will be available to support delivery of the preferred options allocations, before the next stage of a full draft Local Plan. In our view the Councils need to act urgently, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to identify strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions, including demand management measures, to ensure any level of proposed development is delivered sustainably.

We have serious concerns that Plan development is already being progressed, through the adopted strategy, without sustainable water supply measures in place. More water will be abstracted from the aquifer to serve this development, depleting groundwater resources and causing further declines in the condition of designated sites and supporting habitat. The Plan will need to consider the impacts of this development and identify measures to address adverse environmental impact.

Natural England fully supports the concerns raised by the Environment Agency, as lead authority on this matter, including the high degree of uncertainty as to whether sufficient sustainable water supplies can be provided for the proposed growth over the plan period without further detriment to the natural environment. Further development of the WCS, informed by evidence from regional and water company water resource plans, will need to demonstrate that appropriate deliverable mitigation measures can support sustainable growth until new strategic water supply infrastructure becomes operational. We agree with the Environment Agency that it in the face of current challenges it may be appropriate to consider an extended timeframe for delivery of Plan development to limit further environmental degradation until new strategic measures become available. This would allow further time for the identification of truly sustainable options that build in resilience to climate change and robust mitigation and monitoring measures to address impacts to the natural environment and restore habitat condition.

Duty to Cooperate
Natural England welcomes consideration of how the Plan fits with other plans and strategies including cross boundary projects such as the Ox Cam Arc. We support recognition of the Plan to be prepared within a wider regional context noting the Councils’ legal duty to cooperate with key stakeholders and surrounding areas of cross boundary issues. We agree that the development of a clear and positive vision for the future of the Greater Cambridge area can help to shape the proposals for the Ox Cam Arc, noting that the outcome of the Oxford-Cambridge framework is currently awaited.

We particularly support the Councils’ recognition that the water supply challenge discussed above is a serious issue to be resolved.

Natural England will be pleased to engage with the Councils in the preparation and development of a draft Statement of Common Ground.

Transport Strategy
Natural England welcomes that the proposed strategy is heavily informed by the location of existing and committed public transport schemes. We support the use of transport modelling to understand whether additional infrastructure and policies are required to address the transport impacts of the preferred development strategy.

Transport policies should include requirements for projects to undertake robust ecological impact assessment and application of the ecological mitigation hierarchy.

Site allocation policies
Proposed site allocation policies are described through sections 2.2 – 2.5. Natural England has no objection in principle to the existing and new allocations, areas of major change or opportunity areas being taken forward for development. However, this is subject to:
• identification of strategic water supply infrastructure and/or feasible interim solutions to demonstrate that development can be delivered sustainably and without adverse impact to the natural environment;
• establishment of a framework and robust plan policies to deliver the 14 Strategic Green Infrastructure initiatives ahead of development, to meet development needs and to address the effects of recreational pressure on sensitive sites and habitats.

The site allocation policies will need to include robust requirements to secure delivery of biodiversity net gain and on-site accessible green infrastructure to meet people’s need and to contribute towards the Plan’s 20% BNG targets and delivery of the Nature Recovery Network / Cambridge Nature Network. Our advice is that major allocation policies should set a framework for development to maximum opportunities for environmental gains.

Climate Change
We welcome the proposed policies relating to net zero carbon and water efficiency, designing for climate change, flooding and integrated water management, renewable energy projects, reducing waste and supporting land-based carbon sequestration. We particularly support the proposed requirement for residential developments to be designed to achieve a standard of 80 litres/person/ day; however, we support the Environment Agency’s concerns as to whether the Plan is likely to achieve the reductions in demand required to support sustainable growth. As indicated above the WCS will need to demonstrate how water, to meet growth needs, will be supplied sustainably without adverse impact to the natural environment.

Proposed requirements for developments to provide integrated water management, including sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) where possible and for SuDS and green /brown roofs to provide multiple benefits (including biodiversity and amenity) are welcomed.

We support requirements for renewable energy projects to consider impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape and water quality.

Natural England welcomes a proposed policy to support the creation of land and habitats that play a role as carbon sinks and protect existing carbon sinks from development, particularly peatlands such as those remaining in the north of South Cambridgeshire district. We welcome recognition of the importance of peatlands as a carbon store and the role of other habitats such as woodlands and grasslands, noting loss and degradation of natural habitats results in the direct loss of carbon stored within them.

As indicated above we recommend that the Plan takes a more holistic approach to securing multi- functional benefits for climate change, flood management, water resources and water quality through the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. Natural solutions can achieve significant additional benefits for biodiversity, green infrastructure and associated health and wellbeing benefits, enhanced landscapes and soil resources.

Biodiversity and green spaces
We strongly support the proposed biodiversity and green spaces policies and the inclusion of Figure 53 depicting the existing Greater Cambridge green infrastructure network including designated sites.

We welcome that these policies will help to deliver the aims of the Ox Cam Arc of doubling the area of land managed primarily for nature and to deliver a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain on development sites, beyond the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain requirements of the Environment Act 2021. We agree that Greater Cambridge has a relatively low level of designated sites and priority habitats, highlighting the need for development to deliver net gains beyond the 10% proposed nationally, hence we are fully supportive of minimum 20% BNG ambitions. Our advice is that the Councils, working with key partners, should identify BNG opportunities through the next phases of Plan preparation. This should take the form of a BNG opportunities / requirements map building on the foundations of the Nature Recovery Network and the Cambridge Nature Network. National Habitats Network mapping is available to view at www.magic.defra.gov.uk.

The Councils should also set a landscape / GI framework for the Site Allocations to maximise opportunities for delivery of GI and BNG within the development sites.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Natural England fully supports this policy and requirements for development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain, delivered on site where possible and calculated using the Defra Metric
3.0 or its successor. Requirements for off-site measures to be consistent with the strategic aims of the Greater Cambridge green infrastructure network strategic initiatives are welcomed.

The policy should take a natural capital evidence approach and recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services for climate change, flood risk management, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing, in addition to biodiversity. They main thrust of this policy should be the Plan’s contribution to the Nature Recovery Network / Cambridge Nature Network and the establishment of a framework for the development of a Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

We support proposed requirements for development to avoid adverse impact to site of biodiversity or geological importance and development to mitigate recreational pressure on statutorily designated sites, applying Natural England’s SSSI Impacts Risk Zones (IRZs). The Plan’s biodiversity policy should recognise the hierarchy of international, nationally and locally designated sites across Greater Cambridge. This should be accompanied by a map of the existing ecological network and enhancement opportunity areas to guide site allocations / development away from more sensitive areas and to identify opportunities for developers to deliver net biodiversity gain enhancements.

We welcome that the policy will seek wider environmental net gains. These should focus on measures to restore ecological networks, enhance ecological resilience and provide an overall increase in natural habitat and ecological features.

Reference should be made to the detailed advice provided in our response to the Issues and Options consultation with regard to protecting and enhancing biodiversity including designated sites, priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally protected species populations. This includes additional detailed advice on embedding biodiversity net gain into the Greater Cambridge Local Plan policies.

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
We welcome the comprehensive and thorough approach taken in developing the GI evidence base for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, including the Opportunity Mapping and the identification of 14 Strategic GI initiatives. The multifunctional benefits of GI are fully recognised, as well as the links between GI provision and the delivery of other strategic policy areas including the wider natural environment, sustainable transport and social inclusion. These threads/links

should continue through future drafts to ensure the value of GI for people and the natural environment is fully reflected in the Local Plan.

The Strategic GI initiatives are comprehensive and capture a wide variety of GI opportunities within the 14 proposals; this range of GI elements and habitats will help to maximise benefits for people and nature through the strategic planning and delivery of GI across Greater Cambridge. We support the emphasis given to blue infrastructure in Strategic Initiatives 1 and 2 given the considerable pressures on Cambridgeshire’s chalk streams and aquifer from agriculture and development. The Chalk Stream Strategy Report1 recently published by CaBA identifies a number of recommendations to protect/restore chalk stream habitats, including those in areas of high population density such as Cambridge. This report may be a useful reference in planning and progressing strategic blue infrastructure initiatives as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

We support the proposed approach to have a distinct GI policy within the Local Plan, rather than a stand-alone SPD. As noted in the Topic Paper, we agree that the policy should require all developments to contribute towards GI and that it should be incorporated into design from an early stage and through all phases of development, with a longer-term plan in place for its management and maintenance. As well as a GI policy, Green Infrastructure should be integrated into other strategic policy areas and Local Plan themes where relevant. This will give weight to the multifunctional role of GI and demonstrate where it can contribute to policy delivery and outcomes (e.g., in climate change adaptation, supporting healthy communities etc). It will also support the role of GI in implementing other mechanisms and tools, such as Biodiversity Net Gain, and may help in targeting and prioritising opportunities for GI creation and enhancement.

In addition to securing GI within individual developments, the Local Plan should also provide a framework for proposals to contribute to / link up with the wider Strategic Initiatives, including the ‘dispersed initiatives’ 10-14 (e.g., ‘Expanding the Urban Forest’). Consideration should also be given to potential join-ups on cross-boundary projects and, in time, how the strategic GI network in Greater Cambridge may contribute to greenspace at the regional level (as one of the 5 Ox-Cam counties). There may also be overlaps with other initiatives, such as the Nature Recovery Network, where Cambridgeshire’s GI resource can make an important contribution (such as that highlighted in Strategic Initiative 3 for the Gog Magog Hills and Chalkland fringe).

We note from the Part 2 Recommendations Report that there are several points for further consideration, including the funding mechanisms required to ensure that all developments include GI and contribute towards the strategic initiatives. Funding mechanisms (e.g., developer contributions) should be embedded in policy where required and should be identified as early as possible to ensure that benefits are secured long-term. For example, the policies for major allocations will need to include specific requirements for the funding / delivery of the strategic GI ahead of the developments being occupied so that these are clear from the outset. The report presents a number of potential funding sources, including land use planning obligations (e.g., S106) agri-environment streams (such as ELMS) and any ad-hoc opportunities that may arise through partnership working. The increasing emphasis on nature-based solutions may also bring in new revenue streams to support strategic projects, given that many NBS will require a landscape scale / ‘ecosystem’ approach. The costings for the delivery of the GI and biodiversity aspects of the Local Plan could be included in the IDP so that the investment required to bring about delivery is clear and transparent from an early stage and factored into development proposals. Given the significant scale of the work required, consideration should also be given to how the land will be secured to deliver the GI initiatives, whether through direct purchase, lease or management agreements. A long-term approach to the management and maintenance of GI (ideally in perpetuity) also needs to be factored in from an early stage.

Alongside its value for natural capital and placemaking, green infrastructure provides alternative natural greenspaces that can help alleviate and buffer recreational pressures on protected sites. We welcome the recognition of the recreational pressure impacts across Greater Cambridge, and

1 1 Catchment Based Approach (October 2021) Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy: Main Report. See: New strategy launched to protect chalk streams - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

the Strategic Initiatives aimed at addressing these (e.g., the Coton corridor and multifunctional GI corridors, Strategic Initiatives 7-8). We support the development of clear policy requirements to address these significant pressures (as suggested in the Topic Paper).

Given the Local Plan’s strong emphasis on GI and the widespread benefits that it can achieve, we feel there is clear value in having a recognised GI standard in place. A standard would help to guide and inform GI planning and delivery and provide a consistent benchmark on quality across different scales/locations of development. It would also support the recommendation in the report for a GI-led design approach to new development. A standard could be supported by other documents, e.g., Local Design Guides, to ensure that nature is fully built into design through the provision of high-quality green infrastructure. Natural England is currently developing a Green Infrastructure Framework to set standards for green space and access to natural greenspaces, as well as a Design Guide and mapping data2 to support this work. We would encourage the use of these resources to guide and inform development of strategic Green Infrastructure and policies for Greater Cambridge. The Framework of GI Standards and products are due for launch in summer/autumn 2022, with a pre-release of the beta mapping and the principles of good green infrastructure in December 20213.

Natural England fully supports the proposed inclusion of policies to improve tree canopy cover, enhance river corridors and protect and enhance open spaces. We advise that robust policy requirements should be included to secure delivery of enhancements through development to ensure the achievement of multi-functional benefits for climate change, biodiversity, water quality, access. As indicated in our comments at the Issues and Options stage tree planting needs to be targeted in appropriate locations and considered in the context of wider plans for nature recovery. Consideration should be given to ecological impacts and the opportunities to create alternative habitats that could deliver better enhancements for people and wildlife, and store carbon effectively. Where woodland habitat creation is appropriate, consideration should be given to natural regeneration, and ‘rewilding’ for the economic and ecological benefits this can achieve.
Any tree planting should use native and local provenance tree species suitable for the location. Natural England advocates an approach which seeks to increase biodiversity and green infrastructure generally, not simply planting of trees, and protecting / enhancing soils, particularly peat soils.

For further advice and guidance on green infrastructure please refer to our comments at the Issues and Options consultation stage.

Wellbeing and inclusion
Natural England is fully supportive of the proposed policies including WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments. Our advice is that the policy should include strong links to the importance of adequate level and quality of accessible green infrastructure for people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Great places
Natural England supports the proposed Great Places policies. We welcome the establishment of a Place and Design Quality Panel to conduct a site typologies study to understand, protect, utilise and enhance the valued characteristics of different areas in the plan, with the intention of using this information to raise design standards to ensure development reflects and enhances Cambridge’s distinctive landscape and townscape character.

We support Policy GP/LC Protection and enhancement of landscape character. Natural England is pleased to see that the Greater Cambridge landscape character assessments have been updated and will provide an up-to-date evidence base for the development of policy GP/LC. Existing retained policies form the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan NH/1, NH/2 and NH/13 and policy 8 of the Cambridge Local Plan should be reviewed and updated in the light of these updated landscape

2 See the GI Framework Mapping Portal: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/GreenInfrastructure/Home.aspx 3 How Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework can help create better places to live - Natural England (blog.gov.uk)

character assessments to ensure they reflect the most recent baseline evidence.

Policy GP/LC seeks to identify, protect and enhance locally valued landscapes. Any locally designated landscapes, e.g., Areas of Greater Landscape Value, should be identified within the plan and given appropriate policy protection to protect and enhance them and to ensure that development reflects their distinctive character. It is not the role of Natural England to define locally valued landscapes – this is for LPAs and their communities. However, it should be noted that NE considers World Heritage Sites designated for their natural interest, local landscape designations and Inheritance Tax Exempt land to be locally valued. Therefore, these areas should be identified and included on policy maps showing locally designated landscapes along with any ‘Protected views’.

The Strategic Spatial Options Assessment appears to have considered a wide range of options based on up-to-date evidence on landscape and townscape character considerations. We support this approach which is useful in identifying and considering key landscape issues early in the Plan- making process, to feed into the Sustainability Appraisal. We note that the appraisal of the strategic spatial options is based on the interim draft findings of the emerging Landscape Character Assessment. We trust that the preliminary conclusions will be updated following completion of this work. The analysis also notes that recommendations are provided for strategic landscape mitigation and enhancement for each of the strategic spatial options. Natural England supports the proposal to identify specific mitigation as part of more detailed studies in locating and designing future development.

We are generally supportive of policies to protect and enhance the Cambridge Green Belt, achieve high quality development and establish high quality landscape and public realm.

Jobs
Natural England supports proposed policy J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land. We welcome recognition of soil as a valuable resource and key element of the environmental ecosystem which requires protection, in accordance with paragraph 174 of the NPPF. We note that the protection of peat soils is addressed under the climate change theme discussed above.

Beyond the wider water resource / supply issue, discussed above, we have no substantive comments on the other proposed policies. However, policies will need to include appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity.

Homes
Beyond the wider water resource / supply issue we have no specific comments to make on these proposed policies subject to the inclusion of appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity. Residential development should also contribute towards delivery of the Strategic GI Initiatives.

Infrastructure
Natural England supports proposed policy I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity for the environmental and health benefits this could achieve including reduced emissions, air quality and climate change benefits.

We have no substantive comments on the other proposed policies subject to the inclusion of appropriate requirements to ensure that all development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment and delivers net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Natural England supports preparation of the HRA Report by LUC (August 2021). We welcome that this incorporates a screening assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The Screening stage

identifies likely significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other policies and proposals, for several plan policies. These include:
• Physical damage and loss (offsite) – in relation to Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.
• Non-physical disturbance (offsite) – in relation to Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.
• Recreation – in relation to Wicken Fen Ramsar SAC and Fenland SAC.
• Water Quantity and Quality – in relation to Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC.
The Appropriate Assessment concludes no adverse effect on site integrity as follows: Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC
Subject to the following safeguards and mitigation measures being implemented:
• Completion of bat surveys for site allocations identified with moderate or high potential to support barbastelle to determine the ecological value of these sites in relation to this bat species and to inform specific mitigation proposals.
• There is a commitment in the plan that proposed development will avoid key habitat features likely to be used by this species and to create and enhance suitable habitat for this species.
• It is also recommended that policy wording in the plan is strengthened to include specific inclusion of the safeguard measures detailed above and that Policy BG/BG Biodiversity and geodiversity is strengthened to include specific reference that mitigation provided should be suitable to the level of protection afforded to designated sites.

Wicken Fen Ramsar site and Fenland SAC
The Appropriate Assessment concludes no adverse effect on integrity as a result of increased recreational pressure provided that the following safeguards and mitigation measures are required by the plan and successfully implemented:
• A commitment in the plan to ensure that development within 20km of the Ramsar site and SAC to provide sufficient suitable alternative natural greenspace in line with advice from Natural England and that there should be specific detail on the policy on the appropriate quantity and quality of open spaces and how delivery and management in perpetuity will be secured.

The Appropriate Assessment is currently unable to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC, with regard to water quantity and quality, pending the provision of further evidence through the Greater Cambridge IWMS and the WRE IWMP.

We welcome that the HRA has provided a detailed consideration of air quality impacts, associated with Plan development, for the relevant European sites. This is based on best practice Highways England Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) LA 105 Air quality guidance and considers the potential for traffic-related emissions on the affected road network based on traffic modelling data, in line with the advice provided by Natural England at the Issues and Options stage. Whilst the assessment has ruled out likely significant effects on all relevant European sites Natural England has been unable to carry out a detailed review of this information and will provide comments at the next stage of Plan consultation.

Please note that Natural England is reviewing the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC to take into account the findings of emerging SAC barbastelle tracking surveys being undertaken for major development schemes. It will also take into consideration the availability of suitable foraging resource which is considered to be quite scarce in the local area. In the meantime, until the IRZ is formally amended, and accompanying guidance prepared, we welcome application of a precautionary 20km buffer zone for SAC barbastelles in line with Natural England’s current local guidance.

Natural England is generally supportive of the interim findings of the HRA and will provide further

advice as the HRA is updated in line with the development of Plan policies and further evidence.

Sustainability Appraisal
Through the Sustainability Appraisal (LUC, October 2021) the preferred policy approaches for the Local Plan have been subject to appraisal against the SA objectives. A range of reasonable alternative options has also been assessed, including alternatives to the preferred policy approaches, Strategic Spatial Options and site options. We welcome that the findings of the HRA will be incorporated into the SA and will provide further insight into biodiversity impacts specifically at designated sites, presenting the opportunity to limit adverse impacts at these locations.

We support recognition of the over-abstraction of water in this region as a serious concern. We welcome acknowledgement that action is required now to ensure the availability of water for future uses without detrimental impact on the environment. Natural England agrees that water resource availability and water quality are inter-related and that these are likely to be exacerbated by the effects of climate change.

The new Local Plan presents the opportunity for new development to come forward at the most appropriate locations in order to avoid detrimental impacts on biodiversity assets. However, we support recognition of potential risks to the ecological network including statutorily designated sites, through degradation and other impacts associated with development.

We agree that the new Local Plan provides the opportunity to promote biodiversity gain and to improve the overall ecological network. Natural England also agrees that opportunities identified through the Green Infrastructure Study (2020) could support delivery of Natural England's Habitat Network nearby opportunity zones and support pollinator corridors. Robust plan policies will need to be developed to secure delivery of these enhancements through all relevant development.

The report concludes that overall, the proposed direction of the Local Plan performs well in sustainability terms with a strong focus on providing an appropriate amount of development and policies focused on minimising carbon emissions, particularly through minimising the need to travel, using land efficiently and making the most of existing and planned sustainable transport links. Natural England suggests this is a premature conclusion in the current absence of strategic water supply infrastructure and sustainable interim measures. Development through the adopted strategy is already being progress without these measures in place. Further development of the Green Infrastructure Initiatives is also required to ensure adequate GI to meet development needs and to alleviate recreational pressures on some of our most sensitive sites habitats. Robust plan policies, to secure timely delivery of this strategic green infrastructure, will be required to demonstrate the Plan’s sustainability.

We generally welcome the policy recommendations presented within Chapter 5 of the SA report including reference to the mitigation hierarchy within Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity and stronger commitments to protect and enhance biodiversity within this and the site allocation policies. However, in our view SA recommendations should focus on the urgent requirement for the identification of strategic and interim water resource/infrastructure solutions and further work to progress the GI Initiatives into real projects.

Natural England will provide further advice as the SA is updated in line with the development of Plan policies and further evidence.

We hope our comments are helpful. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Janet Nuttall on […]. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Vision and aims
I support the vision and aims of the Local Plan and the general direction of the development strategy, but am concerned about the overall scale of development and the continuing high levels of growth which are driven by technical economic growth forecasts.

How much development, and where – general comments
I recognise that Greater Cambridge has a strong and nationally important economy, but I do not support the continuing pace and scale of high levels of growth that has increasing cumulative impacts on the environment, water supply, heritage and carbon emissions.
I would argue that the growth of the Cambridge and the impacts of that level of growth on South Cambridgeshire are disproportionately high (a third higher than the government targets) compared with other Local Plans, because the scale of growth is driven by technical economic forecasts studies and the desire to continue to stoke the engine of growth yet again.
The area over the last 30 years has absorbed major levels of development which has brought many benefits and disbenefits.
But the time has come with this Plan, in a new era having to seriously address the causes and impacts of climate change and net zero carbon goals to set t Cambridge on a different course.
The development strategy should with this Plan start to reduce the scale of growth to more manageable levels, perhaps towards the Low option so as to set the direction of travel for the next planning round in the era of climate change .

S/JH: New jobs and homes
The level of new homes proposed in the Plan is driven by the need to enhance economic growth, so much so that it is 37% higher than the Government targets for the area.
This proposes larger amounts of housing growth in the surrounding South Cambridgeshire District to serve Cambridge and the surrounding area.
A large amount of new development proposed in the housing pipeline is already allocated to known sites. A moderated target would lessen the uncertainty of deliverability, ease of the identified water supply issue and give time to for water companies to decide and implement sound options, and reduce climate impacts.
Even a moderate reduction in the housing target, which goes so far beyond what the Government requires, could provide more reserve housing sites, providing flexibility to maintain a five year housing supply, reduce pressure on villages and start to slow the pace of change in an area, which has seen so much cumulative change over the recent decades.

S/DS: Development strategy
I generally support the Development Strategy that supports sustainable development and proposes compact active neighbourhoods in Cambridge, development and /or expansion of new towns connected by good public and active transport and the proposals for very limited new development in the rest of the rural area.

S/SH: Settlement hierarchy
I support the proposed Settlement hierarchy policy area as a means of planning and directing new development towards the most suitable and sustainable locations.
In my comment on the rest of rural area, I am concerned about the impact of unallocated housing windfalls being used by possible speculative planning applications contrary to the development strategy to direct development to the most sustainable locations.
I would suggest that the word indictive in the proposed policy SS/SH is omitted to strengthen and add clarity to the proposed policy in the light of the revised annual windfall target.
Support the reclassification of Cottenham and Babraham villages to provide locations for development and new jobs on good public transport routes.

S/SB: Settlement boundaries
I support the work on the development of Settlement boundaries, especially to protect the open countryside from gradual encroachment around villages and on high quality agricultural land.
The work on settlement boundaries should include the involvement of Parish Councils at an appropriate stage in the development of the Policy because of their local data and knowledge of past development.

Cambridge urban area - general comments
Support in Cambridge urban area for good designed, active compact new developments, reuse of brownfield land and continued development of larger neighbourhoods where possible.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Support the development of NE Cambridge as a sustainable neighbourhood with good public transport and active transport into Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge - general comments
Support edge of Cambridge planned new neighbourhoods and new sustainable developments and settlements of sufficient size to cater for daily needs and with good access to public and active transport

New settlements - general comments
Support for new settlements of substantial size to cater for more than local needs. I particularly support the growth of Cambourne which can provide good rail access into Cambridge and to the West in the mid-term from new East West rail infrastructure.

S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
Support the release of land from the Green Belt to support nationally important R and D and life science jobs located near to public transport routes and active transport.

S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
NB, Policy has different name on map page.
In accordance with reducing carbon emissions, and supporting access to the existing rail network the villages of Shelford and Whittlesford could be locations for more sustainable development, despite Green Belt locations

S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster
Support existing site allocations to be carried forward including the expansion of Babraham research campus using Green Belt land

Rest of the rural area - general comments
I support the development strategy approach which directs new development to a limited number of sites in the most sustainable development locations supporting the sustainability of villages.
There is still the matter of the unallocated housing windfall development identified in the strategy Topic Paper of 5345 homes for 2021-2041 which is not included in the additional allocated land target of the 11596.
The anticipated dwellings per year for SCDC is between 240 and 255 dwellings a year. Notwithstanding the proposed policy SS/SH, there is a risk that developers will seek speculative permission in the open countryside greenfield sites contrary to the development strategy using the windfalls allocation and I have made a comment on this on Policy SS/SH.

Climate change - general comments
All new development will have impacts relating to increasing carbon emissions and require adaptation responses. A Local Plan can only seek to mitigate these impacts and by far the most impacts are from the existing development, their use and getting around using carbon fuelled transport.
The rate of change in and around Cambridge over the past 30 years has been significantly greater than for just local needs, mainly to develop nationally important economic development. This Plan continues this approach despite the issue of climate change and water supply and large amounts on new development still to be implemented from current Local Plans.
I would argue that the time has now come to step back from this direction of travel and begin to reduce the scale of growth around Cambridge using the Low option as a first step.
I was hoping, given the aims of the Plan and the input of the Net Zero Carbon study for a more radical Plan which addressed climate change and zero carbon targets through aiming to reduce the total amount of new development to meet local needs need and move to a position which is in line with Government targets in the next planning round.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
Support in general
Although I have concerns about how for example heat pump technology can be installed and used at reasonable cost in new development.

CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments
Support, important given the water supply issues coming forward up to 2041

CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Support especially with regards balancing insulation and overheating with increasing hot to very hot summers risk brought about through a changing climate.
Site wide approaches should include appropriate lower densities through good design which allow for beyond minimum garden space and space for Suds and open space and greening.

CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management
Support
Especially permeable surfaces and integration of water management with enhancements to biodiversity and greening.

CC/CS: Supporting land-based carbon sequestration
Support the creation of land for use as carbon sinks through the development process. Perhaps a suitable use of land in the Green Belt or on lower grade agricultural land.

Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Support the identification of 14 strategic GI initiatives and enhancing the linkages between GI and open spaces to provide corridors for wildlife.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Support delivery of a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain.
I would comment that funding for long term management of biodiversity assets is key for the long-term benefits from such a policy.
I could also emphasis the creation of winter wet areas, water space and Suds designed to benefit enhanced biodiversity should be planned in to developments at an early stage

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Support the use of a GI standard, particularly on larger developments.
In particular early identification of GI and biodiversity assets and potential gains as an early part of the design process and /or planning brief

BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population
Support increasing tree and woodland cover, ensuring right tree(s) in right places and species futureproofed for lifetime changing climate adaptation.
A particular opportunity is the rural field margins of agricultural land to help increase the linkages and biodiversity gains and in specific places the creation of woodland belts in the open countryside, green belt land and around villages.
In Cambridge urban areas, where there are existing trees there is a need to plan their replacement with adaptation species to gradually adapt to a changing climate.
Also, to provide sufficient future tree cover to mitigate the urban heat island effect, provide shade and mitigate microclimatic effects.

BG/RC: River corridors
Support the protection and enhancement of river corridors and restoration of natural features and use of GI to support the alleviation of flooding risk.
Support the delivery of the continuous Cam Valley Trail.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
Support the protection of the wide variety of open spaces and use of Local Green Space designation in appropriate locations

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Support the provision of open space and recreation provision, including appropriate play space.

WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
Support the use of health impact assessments in proposals.
I would comment that with the increase in ride on electric vehicles and increasing older communities there are opportunities to coordinate with transport professional the delivery of smooth pathways with minimal dropped kerbs which gives smoother access to local centres and bus stops linked to older persons housing and also can prevent falls.

GP/PP: People and place responsive design
Support the requirement of inclusion of a comprehensive design and access statement and recognise the importance of good design tailored to the local area and involving local communities and Parish Councils particularly in villages.

GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Support the use of landscape character assessment to enhance the setting of Cambridge and protect and enhance the setting of villages.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
National guidance places great importance on Green Belt policy and sets out how planning proposals should be considered.
I support the use of GI and other opportunities to provide access and increase tree and woodlands where appropriate in the Green Belt.
But I think where there are locations where there is good public transport especially rail access or future rail access there is a good case to consider the special circumstances judgment.
I think it is time to question if this national policy is still relevant to the situation Greater Cambridge in the period up to the middle of the century. Further Green Belt assessments may be better served by considering sustainable development and the extension of the Green Belt to prevent coalescence around villages beyond the current Green Belt boundary which was made before most of the new development (over 70%) is beyond the current outside boundary or further modification of this policy to enable growth to be planned for the 21st century rather than the conditions which related to the last century.

Jobs – general comments
I am concerned about the scale of economic growth in the area and its use to drive large amounts of housing growth well about what would be required in other planning areas.
However, I support the life science sector and its national importance and the appropriate development in science parks including their expansion using Green Belt land

J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land
Support the restriction of development on the best agricultural land as supported in the Sustainability Appraisal.

Homes – general comments
Support the objective for planning enough housing to meet our needs, including affordable housing to rent or buy.
I object to needs being directly driven by future economic assessments, the direction of travel of the plan should be as much balanced by the climate change as future economic demand.

H/HD: Housing density
Support design led approach to determine optimum capacity of sites and appropriate density to respond to local character, especially in villages.

H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots
Support for controlling the use of gardens for new development.

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.

The Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations (FeCRA) is a grassroots civic voice for everyone in Cambridge and for its environment. Residents want a say in shaping Cambridge’s development to ensure that the city grows in a way that is sustainable and inclusive, achieves balanced communities and addresses the issues of climate change and health, social equality and quality of life. Residents know their areas well, and they want to be involved in evidence gathering and data collection.

Over the last years residents' associations have organised successful discussions on parking, local election hustings, Greater Cambridge transport schemes, neighbourhood planning, heritage and public realm and green spaces and the river and biodiversity.

FeCRA’s well attended AGM events are organised on the same basis, featuring presentations from prominent experts including leading landscape architect Kim Wilkie, George Ferguson, former Mayor of Bristol and the distinguished Oxford ecologist Professor David Rogers. More recently, the Supersize Cambridge event which attracted 230 people and involved community reps from all over Cambridge highlighted concerns about employment led growth and the global interests driving this. FeCRA’s strength is in its network of members in all city neighbourhoods and good channels of communication with villages across South Cambs, along with the five OxCam Arc counties and Norfolk, Suffolk, Hert and Essex. The Federation is entirely voluntary and self funded.

A sense of neighbourhood and wellbeing and belonging and mutual support is especially important in a city which has earned the unenviable title of the most unequal city in the UK.

Draft Local Plan
How much development and where
Many residents are shocked at the level of growth proposed in the new Draft Local Plan and what they see as the plan’s failure to consider the overall environmental capacity and climate change impact and the effect on the historic environment (built and natural) in a holistic way. There is no mention of Covid and opportunities for city centre residential and/or other uses resulting from potential radical changes in retail and office working.
There is no consideration or assessment of current growth in the pipeline or of the success or failure of current Local Plan policies, no assessment of the cumulative impact of current growth, especially in terms of delivering the claimed nature and quality of development.

There is a complete dearth of new cultural or provision for other ‘city-scale’ needs which will put the city centre under even greater pressure.

Where is the overall vision of what Cambridge will be like in the future? Who is the city for? This plan does not make clear.

The question of how much development and where is premature pending the January 2022 consultation on the Regional Water Plan and the investigation of sewage infrastructure and sewage dumping by Anglian Water.

Inadequate Water Supply

Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire already have an unsustainable supply of potable water. In August 2020, the Environment Agency, in response to a query on the viability of water supply to Northstowe Phase 3A wrote to Monica Hone of Friends of the Cam that 'current levels of abstraction are causing environmental damage. Any increase in use within existing licenced volumes will increase the pressure on a system that is already failing environmental targets', and 'many waterbodies did not have the flow to support the ecology.'
On the 1st July 2021, DEFRA announced that chalk streams would be given enhanced environmental protection, and published the Environment Agency document titled “Water stressed areas – final classification 2021” which included the fact that the supply areas of Cambridge Water and Anglian Water are areas of serious water stress, page 6.
According to Appendix 3, Cambridge Water needs to reduce abstraction by 22 megalitres per day from levels current at 1st July 2021, and Anglian Water needs to reduce abstraction by 189 megalitres per day from levels current at 1st July 202

Yet, one of Anglian Water’s proposed ‘solutions’ to this problem is to pump water from North Lincolnshire, which is also classified by the Environment Agency in the above report as a water stressed area.

The expectation that ‘green’ growth and River Cam Corridor nature tourism can fund a system of water management without addressing over- abstraction and sewage in the rivers

The local sewage system is currently inadequate. The inadequacy of the sewage system is evidenced by the number of sewage spills by smaller Anglian Water sewage works into the Cam Valley. Currently, there are no plans to improve failing combined sewer overflows (csos), just promises to monitor them more accurately. The Cam Valley upstream of Cambridge saw 622 hours of untreated wastewater enter the rivers in 2020, yet Anglian Water is proposing to move the one sewage works in the area which has been upgraded and has sufficient capacity until 2050, the main Cambridge works, into the Green Belt and to spend at least £227 million of public money to do so. This will be the subject of only a partial public inquiry because it has been submitted as a National Infrastructure project in order to minimise public scrutiny.

To date there have been no upgrades at any of the smaller works in the area while more and more taps are still being connected. The Environment Agency has already warned at least one Cambridgeshire local planning authority, East Cambs District Council, that they must stop looking at the sewage requirements of single planning applications and instead look at the cumulative effects.

How can anyone talk about ‘green’ growth and nature tourism when the water companies are over-abstracting and filling the Cam chalk streams with sewage.
New jobs and homes – the plan proposes 58,500 jobs and 44, 400 homes

The way in which this consultation is framed and the fact that it does not address how the region’s water crisis and wastewater and emission problems will be resolved ignores both environmental constraints and the failure of current policies to provide affordable housing. It does not give a true picture of the cost of such high employment growth for the UK’s driest city with a water crisis whose world famous river is drying up and dumped full of sewage.

It undermines the Government’s policy of ‘levelling up.
It completely ignores how the plan will ensure that new developments are for local people and not dormitories for London commuters or just opportunities for foreign investors.

New communities take time to emerge, if they do at all, but the issue is that many new developments are injected into places with existing communities that may suffer as a result, an issue this plan does not assess.

Professor Dieter Helm, Chair of the National Capital Committee has stressed the importance of long-term risk assessment in ensuring net environmental gain, in perpetuity, despite development. There is no evidence that this has been done.

There are massive environmental capacity issues which the Draft Local Plan does nothing to address, 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.

Green Belt Assessment

The Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

On the edge of Cambridge the serious landscape impacts of the Cambridge BioMedical Campus expansion southwards into the Green Belt open countryside towards the Gogs will severely damage this lovely setting of the city with its beautiful chalk downland views. The expansion and likely increase in footfall will hugely impact the small nature reserve of Ninewells, the reserve’s unique character and boskiness and farmland birds.
Building NE Cambridge will indirectly destroy the Green Belt by displacing the sewage works and using a lot of concrete which has a very high carbon footprint.
There is no operational need to move the treatment works as Anglian Water has confirmed. The relocation is taking place to enable development within Cambridge in which the water company is a beneficiary as co-developer. The current site is more than adequate for at least another 30 years and could be upgraded at far less cost. The existing treatment works at Milton is effective and has spare capacity. It was upgraded only recently, at a cost of £21 million in 2015, in order to support planned development in Cambridge and the surrounding area until 2050 and is being vacated only to enable redevelopment. We understand that the Milton Plant is currently only running at approximately 50% capacity. The CO2 cost embedded in the new structure and emitted in demolition and construction is sizable.

Many residents question why the works are being moved given the impact on the Green Belt, the loss of valuable farmland, and the harm to local communities, all of which are united in their opposition. They question how this complies with the guidance outlined in the HM Treasury’s Green Book Valuation of Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-book-supplementary-guidance-wellbeing especially as the Stantec Report prepared as part of the review of the Local Plan and the letter from the Environment Agency https://www.fecra.org.uk/docs/Env%20Agency%20re%20Northstowe%207%20August%202020.pdf make clear that any further development beyond that already planned is unsustainable as ‘current levels of abstraction are causing environmental damage. Any increase in use within existing licensed volumes will increase the pressure on a system that is already failing environmental targets’.

There is no mention in these plans of how relocation of the wastewater plant will address any of the concerns about all the sewage being dumped in the Cam or how Anglian Water proposes to make the River Cam clean and safe for all users. If you were going to spend £200m plus, or even a fraction of it, it should be spent on improving and updating the small local sewage works based around villages etc, which release sewage in the Cam via its tributaries, not on rebuilding something that is working well. In the case of these small poorly functioning sewage systems Anglian Water is almost solely responsible and that is what residents tell us this company should be focusing on, not this grandiose money-making scheme. The chair of Water Resources East, Dr Paul Leinster, is a member of the new Office for Environmental Protection. He is on public record as stating that what to do with the wastewater is one of the biggest problems for development in the region proposed by the government for the Oxford Cambridge Arc.
There are a number of SSSI’s close to the site which could be affected by its construction and operation: Brackland Rough, Cam Washes, Cherry Hinton Pit, Chippenham Fen and Snailawell Poors Fen (a RAMSAR site), Devils Dyke, Felan Dyke, Fulbourn Fen, Gog Magog Golf course, Great Wilbraham Common, Histon Road, Roman Road, Snailwell Meadows, Stow-cum-Quy Fen, Upware South Pit and Wicken Fen, which is another RAMSAR site.

Anglian Water recognises the likelihood that the surface water originating at the works at the Honey Hill site will drain towards Quy Waters protected waterbody and could contaminate it. Yet they have ignored the fact that contaminated groundwater in the chalk aquifer beneath the site could pollute these other receptors and protected rights (local well users) as well as other parts of the surface water drainage network.

The Honey Hill site is in the National Trust Wicken Fen Vision. This is a National Nature Reserve and a Nature Conservation Review site. It is a designated RAMSAR, SAC wetland site of international importance and part of the Fenland Special Area under the Habitats Directive. How does a scheme which robs East Cambridgeshire villages of their green belt and medieval river landscape setting and which impacts the Wicken Fen Vision correlate with protecting Green Belt land which is specifically designed to preserve the historic character of Cambridge and its green belt setting and the River Cam?
Democratic deficit in the process and evidence basis for the Draft Local Plan

Water Resources East have stated that their regional water plans which include plans for natural capital align with the Government's plans for growth. Sewage in rivers and chalk streams is a matter of national concern, yet Water Resources East say that sewage is not part of their remit. They have also said that there will not be public consultation on the regional water plan.

Meanwhile, the public consultation for the Draft Local Plan is taking place now, yet the consultation for the Regional Water Plan is not due until summer 2022. The public and councillors are forced to respond to Local Plan proposals with no idea whether, and if so, how, the water and sewage challenges can be resolved or what trade-offs have been proposed.

South Cambs. MP Anthony Browne has rightly expressed concerns about the Local Plan process and about water issues and transparency.

The Draft Local Plan has been prepared by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, but it appears to be inordinately influenced by the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership which has business interests represented on its board.

Much of the text of the Draft Local Plan appears to be consistent with announcements made by the self- appointed Arc Leaders Group promoting the so-called Ox-Cam Arc. This flawed concept has been criticised for lack of transparency or accountability right across the five affected counties and one county, Buckinghamshire, has withdrawn entirely from this completely undemocratic, self-selecting, body.

At a presentation of growth scenarios for Cambridge Futures3 given by the Vice Chair of Cambridge Ahead Matthew Bullock and Dr Ying Jin in June 16, 2018 the audience pointed out that all of the scenarios for Cambridge Future 3 led to Cambridge having a much higher level of growth.

They highlighted that the growth scenarios made no mention of environmental capacity issues, nothing on climate change, quality of life, affordable housing or why people chose to live in and around Cambridge for cultural and green spaces reasons etc. At the presentation it was made clear that Cambridge Ahead & Cambridge University planned to monetise the model they had come up with.

So the model was not in any sense charitable work, it was completely commercial.
Bullock stressed how complex the model was that Dr Ying Jin and his team had come up with and that they would need to come up with a price for running the model with different input parameters.

This meant that Cambridge Ahead and Cambridge University controlled access to the model, limiting detailed scrutiny and testing by independent third parties.
Those working on the growth scenarios included officers and consultants from SQW – the same consultancy employed along with the real estate consultants GL Hearn by the planners to assess the modelling for the Draft Local Plan as ‘they were not conflicted’.

The presenters Matthew Bullock and Dr Yin Jing said that changing elements of the model and programming scenarios was technically challenging and slow, making it difficult or impossible to test a large number of scenarios.

They also said that they intended to monetise the model, e.g. by charging planning authorities, ONS (the Office of National Statistics) and developers to use it.

The business group Cambridge Ahead had a strong commercial motive for this modelling and the modelling evidence for a much higher level of growth and lots more houses to be built, gives a strong lead on where development should take place. Attendees at the Case for Cambridge Future 3 meeting pointed out that the pre-set "no holds barred" scenarios defined by Cambridge Ahead and Cambridge University and officers and consultants working with them would thus become the only options, even though there were likely to be many other scenarios that would produce better outcomes.
Thus the modelling that has been used to inform the Cpier Strategy cited in the Greater Cambs Employment Land and Economic Development Study Draft Local Plan does not take account of social justice, regional landscape strategy or address environmental capacity issues including those of the river, the city centre and the city’s green spaces. Nor does it consider how people want to live, respecting what communities value, and the issues of climate change, the natural world, water shortage, sewage etc.

This Draft Local Plan reflects those pre-determined scenarios of building on the urban fringes and transport corridors to support the high employment growth defined by Cambridge Ahead and the interests funding the research.

At the Case for Cambridge Future 3 meeting attendees referred to "No holds barred scenarios" and a number of people noted the 'densification' scenario assumed that Trumpington Meadows would be developed alongside Cambridge South station as a location for high density development which would assume a planning approach of creating new development which you “mitigate” by reserving areas of green spaces as ‘wild belt’. They pointed out the approach was to sell housing on that basis and then take it back afterwards for infill and that this was already happening at Cambourne.
The same point about infill and wild belt was made by David Plank of the Trumpington Residents Association regarding the recent presentation by the planners of the Draft Local Plan and the BioMedical Campus Expansion plans round Ninewells to the South Area Committee.
In August 2019 the FeCRA Committee wrote to the Deputy Leader of Cambridge City Council to express concern that the Shelford Local Plan workshop for city residents, cited as the formal first stage of public engagement on the Draft Local Plan had been organised at very short notice and with very little opportunity for city residents to engage in the first formal stage of the Local Plan Process.

FeCRA filmed all f the Local Plan Presentation on the 2018 Local Plan. The film is available for everyone to see. There was very positive feedback from Residents Association members but the presentation also flagged up major concerns about the ‘growth agenda’ and the apparent lack of transparency and democratic input around it.

We were told at that meeting that there would be an opportunity for residents to contribute to early discussions about the next LP, yet this Local Plan workshop was arranged at such short notice and at a time and place that made it difficult for many city residents to attend. Consequently very few city residents attended.

Green Infrastructure Modelling Workshops
In June 2020 Deputy Director of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, Paul Frainer, writing to the FeCRA Committee, said:
‘Ahead of and separate to the Local Plan process, the Local Nature Partnership (as a separate body albeit with some local authority input) has identified priority projects it would support if funding were to become available in the short term, but no decisions have been made through the Local Plan process about which green spaces to prioritise.

The Local Plan green space evidence base study will identify priority projects, and will advise which should be included in the Local Plan, and which should be delivered through land management as opposed to development processes. This priority list will in future also inform biodiversity net gain offsetting, and bids for funding from other sources’.

The minutes for the June 2020 Natural Cambridgeshire board meeting states that the board will:
• ‘Work with developers to enhance nature either on site or through offsets’ –Cameron Adams, the Environment Agency
• ‘Consider how best to engage with farmers and other landowners, and help them get better returns from their investments’ –Rob Wise NFU
• ‘Collaborate with Natural Capital East’ –Cameron Adams
• ‘Review progress of Doubling Nature at end 2020’ –Richard Astle - Athene Communications
On 26 July 2020 the FeCRA Committee wrote to MPs, copied to the planners and Lead Councillors to express concern about the Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Online Survey - 27 July which had been framed again in a way that excluded residents from having a say, particularly about the river and its historic environment. They asked why this survey was linked to funding bids, S106 development sites and future parks accelerator plans and why there had been no assessment of impacts and issues arising from current and already approved growth on green spaces at this stage?

“Why is there no engagement with strategic environmental capacity issues as a vital part of the evidence base for the new Plan?” The Committee pointed out that the government’s plan for sustaining high growth and building one million houses in the OxCamArc is underpinned by Natural Cambridgeshire’s vision for “doubling local nature”, with urban fringe parks in the green belt. Plans for ‘linear river parks’ feature in council and development plans but there had been no consultation with friends or river groups or local councillors.

The River Cam is the only river in the country that is not back to normal flows, yet exponential growth fuels huge pressure upon our natural water supplies. Concerns about the impact of over-abstraction on the River Cam have been expressed but large development keeps getting approved.

Stage 3 of this Local Plan Green infrastructure consultation featured technical workshops, themed around the benefits that green infrastructure provides, to discuss the issues and opportunities arising from the survey responses.

Community reps and residents who had not been able to engage with this survey or who didn’t have funding bids with developers and NGO’s were not able to get a say at the next stage.

This letter followed concerns expressed to Greater Cambs Planners and Cllrs Katie Thornburrow and Bridget Smith that many residents had not been able to access the on line Green Infrastructure consultation hub and the inaccuracy of the mapping and data, highlighted by experienced university conservationists.

Addressing the challenges of climate change and health, social equality and quality of life benefits from local knowledge and the involvement of residents who know about water, flooding, wildlife and nature and managing green spaces and local resources in their areas, working with their elected councillors. Residents say that decisions about land use and ecology have been made by business and interest groups without local knowledge or accountability

The inspirational town planner Jan Gehl advocates that to build communities that work well where people, not cars, occupy the pavement, the evidence needs to be shown and environmental capacity issues need to be addressed. One should count all the pedestrians, cyclists and strollers going by, just as highway planners have long tallied up road users in vehicles and the number of people using the river and its green spaces.
Where is the evidence that this has been done in the Draft Local Plan? It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient water supply within Greater Cambridge to support future development and existing ground water abstraction is impacting water flows within chalk streams in the region anday need to be reduced, especially in the light of climate change.

The situation with groundwater around Cambridge is critical: the whole Cam river system is in crisis
Using water more efficiently is important, but efficiency will not increase the maximum volume of water that can be supplied on a sustainable basis without impacting the environment.

As such REFUSAL of developments is necessary where there is no available water to supply them and/or the environmental impacts caused from supplying that water outweigh benefits of the grant of that permission.
A similar point applies to discharge, especially where this is to groundwater. Where a European site is affected, alternative locations and OROPI ( Overriding Reasons of Public Interest ) may need to be considered prior to any planning decision.

NPPF para 7 makes this point: "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. "

The presumption in favour of sustainable development cannot be determined without sufficient information on the water demands of a development, how these will be met and the implications for the environment and future generations.

We strongly suggest that all planning applications should at application stage confirm their total required annual water usage and have accompanying documentation to confirm that such water can be supplied and discharged where applicable in a manner.

We suggest that all developments are subject to Habitat Regulations Assessment based on their cumulative and in-combination impacts on the available water supply.

Biodiversity
Conservation is essential to sustainable development and together with enhancement of biodiversity should be considered as a key element of good planning and design. 'Doubling nature', Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) are being used as bargaining chips by developers. That broadly amounts to saying, 'No development means no funding for nature'. This is the antithesis of John Lawton's 2010 plea in 'Making Space for Nature' of significant funding for Nature conservation without any strings attached.
The concept of doubling nature is ill-defined - doubling what, exactly? The Draft Local Plan needs to define exactly how the concept will be understood and measured.

The global experience of Biodiversity Net Gain, reviewed by zu Ermgassen of DICE, University of Kent, is that it fails twice as often as it succeeds, even though it had the lower bar of No Net Loss, NNL rather than BNG.
The same group more recently showed that 95% of early-adopters of BNG practices in England are carrying out on site offsetting (something not covered at all in the new Environment Law), where the developer is the judge, jury and executioner of any offsetting plans. In any case, on site offsetting will not encourage many forms of wildlife and will be prone to the dog-fouling and trampling that harms many wildlife areas, even those remote from housing. Meanwhile, off-site off-setting is already damaging local communities in some rural areas.
Natural Capital Accounting is an untested concept. The monetary assessment of ecosystem services (the 'yields') is recognised as being inadequate at present, while assessing the monetary value of ecosystem stocks is more or less impossible (Ian Bateman, communicated to David Rogers). Yet the resulting monetary assessments may be used to trade away environmental for economic assets with a greater yield, for example a factory in a water meadow.

The natural environment is our vital life support system, and it is a dangerous delusion to imagine that it can be rendered easily into any economic framework, let alone the pre Dasgupta framework that gives GDP/GVA primacy over all other forms of stocks and yields.
Dasgupta defines wealth as the sum of natural, human and economic capitals and yields, and sustainability as the condition where this sum is either stable or increasing. Economic growth at the expense of natural capital and yields is therefore unsustainable.
We request that the Cambridge Local Plan adopts the Dasgupta definition of sustainability, i.e. definitely not the NPPF's false definition of 'sustainability', with the caveats mentioned above, especially the false or under-valuation of natural capital. This would provide a better starting point, and the Plan should be reworked in this context.

Sea level rise
Large areas of Cambridgeshire, including parts of the City of Cambridge, are subject to continuously increasing flood risk. Indeed, not only is sea level rising, the rate of sea level rise is increasing rapidly. For many years, since measurement began, sea level in the Wash was rising at a rate of 3mm per year. In 2019 it was measured by the Environment Agency in the Wash, and confirmed by IPCC figures globally, that the annual rate was now 3.3mm per year. In 2014, the IPCC report estimated a sea level rise of 1 metre by 2100. In 2019, the IPCC increased this estimate to 1.1 metres by 2100. In 2021, the IPCC has increased its estimate again, to a terrifying 2.4 metres by 2100. Meanwhile, the meteorological partnership Climate Central estimates a 4.7 metre sea level rise by 2100 if global temperatures rise by 2°C. Both the IPCC 2021 and the COP26 leadership have confirmed that the world is currently on track for a 2.4°C global temperature rise.

The other solution to Cambridgeshire’s water shortages being proposed by Water Resources East and Anglian Water is to build two reservoirs in the Fens, one in South Lincolnshire, the other in Cambridgeshire near the River Great Ouse. However, there is little point in building reservoirs in the Fens when it is clear that there is a high risk they will be flooded by saline water within decades.
As flood risk increases, the Fens will initially be subject to occasional and then annual flooding caused by water in its tidal rivers meeting increased volume of run-off from development. Eventually, the tidal inflow will prevail and flooding will become permanent as the sea level inexorably increases. However, even the first stage will have a significant negative effect on agriculture. The Treasury Green Book assumes loss of cropping for one year if sea water inundation occurs. In fact, as was found in the 1947 and 1953 floods, reduced crop yields last up to seven years due to the presence of a nematode in sea water.

Climate Change
We 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. Outline planning permissions must be subject to the aspirations articulated in the Draft Local Plan.

How will this be done?
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.

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)

For all of these reasons we strongly object to the level of growth proposed in the new Draft Local Plan
Local government should not be planning more economic and population growth in this area or more housing than current government targets require, but prioritising social housing and new water infrastructure to reduce stress on our rivers and wildlife. It should be supporting the national ‘levelling up’ policy. It should be consistent with the government’s ‘brownfield first’ objective which will deliver badly needed homes faster. It should take into account the growing flood risk to large parts of the county and consequences for national food supply. It also needs to take into account the as yet, unknown, long-term effects on employment and travel behaviours of the COVID pandemic.

We request that this flawed Draft LP is rejected, re-written and re-submitted for full public consultation.

Policy GP/GB : Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
Policy GP/GB sets out the framework for consideration of development proposals in the Green Belt.
Notwithstanding the underlying purposes of the Green Belt (Para. 138 of the NPPF), where it can be demonstrated that appropriate development can be brought forward in the Green Belt, sites should be considered within the context of their individual circumstances.
149 of the NPPF confirms that exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt can include for limited infilling of villages. The adopted South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan includes for a policy to allow for infilling in the Green Belt (Policy NH/9). Policy GP/GB should equally be clear on the forms of development that would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.