GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm

Agree with the policy

Council supports this.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the policy but stresses the need for developers to fulfil their planning obligations in terms of the correct provision of infrastructure such as paths and the timely provision of infrastructure and public realm facilities, where the developments in the Southern Fringe have fallen well short of expectations.

We wonder whether financial penalties be levied on developers if they do not meet their obligations?

We stress the importance of designating proper 'home zones' with a 20 mph speed limit from the outset of a development. From our experience in the Southern Fringe, we are very concerned that it can take years before the roads in a development are adopted and the city-wide 20 mph policy can be implemented. The approach to urban design of reducing the occurrence of pavements can have limited impact on driving speeds.

The Wildlife Trust suggests that the Building with Nature standards referred to in policy BG/GI are formally incorporated as a requirement into this or another appropriate policy such as GP/QD.

Audit damaging light schemes. (Burrells Walk).
Inappropriate and controversial degradation of historic character.
Cycle ways- markers and floor-scape must look attractive, fit in with context as well as safe and appealing to use.
No cobbles or sets should be removed in historic core floor-scapes.
Bike racks should be visually assessed in historic core and not over dominate historic areas/ (eg Peas Hill).
Bus lanes – bus shelters. Audit good and bad. improve cleaning maintenance.

Licensed stall holders contracts review on listed bridges.
No Car parking on Silver street Bridge.
Silver street - priority public realm improvement. Remove clobber . Add to Toilet refurbishment scheme.
PLASTIC & Visual Pollution.
Should there be a policy on removing, reducing use of plastic from City Centre?
Ban plastic ties on railings or any notices. City Centre and CA’s.
Ban plastic art schemes- plastic cows, Xmas trees, Boundary treatments.
Ban plastic wavy flag signs. City Centre Kings parade - looks like a garage forecourt?

Market Square.
Ban plastic wavy flag signs above stall heights. Visually polluting building outlines.

Abrdn recognises the importance of high quality landscapes and public realm. Abrdn is therefore supportive of proposed policy GP/QP.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

Supported : Note- Fulfilment of S/NEC Policy through relocation of CWWTP to Honey Hill is contrary to this Policy

We support this policy.

Further release of Green Belt land - in addition to that already released for GB1 and GB2, and the extension of the Biomedical Campus south of Abcam and the helicopter landing site - would be very detrimental to the biodiversity of the area.

USS recognises the importance of high-quality landscapes and public realm. USS is therefore supportive of proposed policy GP/QP.

We support the content of Policy GP/QP, which seeks to encourage social cohesion through the provision of high quality landscaped areas, enhancing connectivity and responding to climate. We also understand the importance of providing a scheme that is landscape-led, promotes inclusivity and establishes well designed open spaces.

The Site proposes and proposed development includes the provision of a Village Park, which will provide an informal leisure destination for existing and future residents in Fowlmere. The Village Park is proposed to include picnic areas, walking and cycling routes, landscaped areas, and be supplemented with natural play areas.

We support policy aspirations for the establishment of high quality landscape and public realm, to support high quality development overall. As with the CBC Vision 2050’s aims for future development, the establishment of high quality landscaping and public realm are central to the future success of the Campus. To thrive, the Campus and the identified Area of Major Change needs to achieve an exceptional quality of place. Detailed landscaping and public realm policies and interventions can be agreed with GCSP through the development of local plan policies.

RSPB supports the policy direction outlined.

Under the Enhanced Connectivity expectations first bullet we suggest it could be usefully expanded to include local landscape and habitats as well as public realm per se.

Under Response to Climate expectations we suggest inclusion in the second bullet of the need to prevent the introduction of new, or expansion of existing invasive species.

Balanced planning considerations should be applied to the policy in the interests of delivering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Developments should not only be landscape led, but instead, should respond to design, land use and landscape considerations.

Balanced planning considerations should be applied to the policy in the interests of delivering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Developments should not only be landscape led, but instead, should respond to design, land use and landscape considerations.

The approach to high quality landscape and public realm is supported. A minor comment is made on the last bullet point of the policy, which sets out the need to ‘provide appropriate types of open space whether in urban or more rural places that link into other sequences of existing or new landscape spaces and wider settings’. It is queried how the measure of ‘appropriate’ will be tested and applied given the significant prospects of variety in how this term is applied.

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.

) To the question “How does this intersect with the other themes?”, might “its residents feel ownership of local decisions that affect their lives” be added?
The proposals for Policy GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm include “Ensure that new and existing public realm seamlessly connects”. It would be helpful for proposals for GB1/2 to be reviewed against this proposal.

This is critically important.

FORM RESPONSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORTH-EAST CAMBRIDGE ‘CORE SITE’, COWLEY ROAD,
CAMBRIDGE


GREATER CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN 'FIRST PROPOSALS' (REG 18)

Written Response on behalf of U&I PLC / TOWN

Monday, 13 December 2021


Classification L2 - Business Data



CONTENTS




0.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 POLICY RESPONSE 2


0.0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 This document sets out written representations on behalf of U+I / TOWN, to a formal consultation by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services (‘GCSP’) on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan ‘First Proposals’ (Preferred Options, Regulation 18, 2021) (‘First Proposals’).
0.2 U+I and TOWN have been selected by Anglian Water and Cambridge City Council (as landowners) to act as Master Developer for the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing Waste Water Treatment Works (‘WWTW’), council depot and golf driving range (to be referred collectively as ‘the Core Site’), for the delivery of approximately 5,500 homes, 23,500m2 of new business space, 13,600m2 of new shops, community, leisure and recreation space (as currently set out in the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (‘NEC AAP’) Proposed Submission Regulation 19 document). For the avoidance of doubt, these representations are submitted on behalf of U+I and TOWN as master developers rather than the landowners themselves.

0.3 Regeneration of the Core Site will be facilitated by the relocation of the WWTW, which will be funded from the Homes England’s Housing Infrastructure Fund, and which is currently going through a Development Consent Order approval process. Anglian Water will be submitting separate representations to the First Proposals, on this specific element.

0.4 U+I/TOWN have been actively involved in the policy formation process of the NEC AAP and are therefore looking to ensure there is policy consistency between the NEC AAP Proposed Submission and First Proposals documents.

0.5 Consideration will need to be given to the prospect of policy inconsistencies between the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (‘GCLP’) and NEC AAP.

0.6 As a point of broad principle, we would request that relevant GCLP policy (particularly where performance standards are stated) provides appropriate wording that defers to more area/site-specific policy, where it is being formed in other Development Plan Documents, such as NEC AAP. In the event of any inconsistency, this will ensure that there is a clear understanding over which policy takes preference. For instance, if a 20% biodiversity net gain (‘BNG’) target is ultimately adopted in GCLP policy, and a minimum 10% BNG is sought in NEC AAP, then there would be a clear signal in the GCLP policy that the NEC AAP policy is the correct standard to apply.



1.0 POLICY RESPONSE

Policy S/JH: Level of Jobs and Housing
OBJECT
1.1 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership acknowledge and support the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area and consider that there is a need to substantially increase housing delivery in order to support economic growth (that is needed to meet the objective of doubling GVA by 2040) and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review). At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.
1.2 These factors support a significantly higher number of homes than are proposed in the preferred ‘medium plus’ growth option of Policy S/JH. It is considered that the ‘medium plus’ growth option makes insufficient upward adjustments to the housing requirement (from Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance) to take into account growth strategies, strategic infrastructure improvements and housing affordability in Greater Cambridge.
1.3 It is suggested that the emerging GCLP should have selected the higher growth level option to support economic growth, address housing affordability, and reduce in-commuting. A higher growth level option would be consistent with the Government’s aspirations for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.
1.4 It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.


Policy S/DS: Development Strategy

SUPPORT

1.5 We broadly support this approach, given that it identifies North-East Cambridge for the creation of new compact city district on brownfield land, noting that it has already been identified for homes and jobs growth.
1.6 However, we are extremely concerned by the ‘Homes’ target for NEC that is stated in the table on page 32, which refers to 3,900 homes between 2020 and 2041. Fundamentally, this is at odds to the trajectory that has been agreed with Homes England as a pre-requisite for the substantial public funding that has been agreed in principle to relocate the WWTW.
1.7 We would therefore instead support a policy that recognises 5,600 homes will be provided on the Core Site by 2041. Consideration will also then need to be given to other housing that is expected to come forward within the NEC AAP.



Policy S/NEC: North-East Cambridge

SUPPORT

1.8 We support this approach but would request that GCLP policy for S/NEC is entirely consistent with NEC AAP. A simple policy that specifies reference to NEC AAP will enable GCLP policy to remain up to date, as and when changes are made through the examination and adoption process.
1.9 We would note that Policy 1 of the NEC AAP Proposed Submission states ‘approximately 8,350 new homes, 15,000 new jobs’, as opposed to ‘up to’ as set out in S/NEC.
1.10 S/NEC policy should therefore be amended to refer to ‘approximately’ and provide a clearer link to NEC AAP.


Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

OBJECT

1.11 The policy wording suggests that there will be a requirement for development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain, which has been based on the South Cambridgeshire District Council Doubling Nature Strategy (2021), the draft Cambridge City Council Biodiversity Strategy 2021 – 2030, and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Environment Principles (2021).
The Environment Act 2021, however, states that a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain should be achieved, and specifies the three forms for doing so:

- Post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat;

- the biodiversity value, in relation to the development, of any registered offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development;

- the biodiversity value of any biodiversity credits purchased for the development;

1.12 Whilst U+I/TOWN recognise the importance in providing significant biodiversity improvements through development, it is considered that the mandatory minimum limit should reflect the legislative target. However, policy could still actively encourage schemes to exceed the minimum, recognising that those that do will be considered as a planning ‘benefit’ of development in sustainability terms (the greater the increase, the greater the weight attached to the assessment of benefit in any planning balance).
1.13 In terms of implications for the Core Site in North-East Cambridge, the NEC Ecology Study (2020) recommended that a target for a net gain of 10% is applied for all developments within NEC. Where this is not achievable within the site boundary then offsite measures should be provisioned.
1.14 By way illustration, a 20% gain to the 36.76 biodiversity units that have been identified in the Ecology Study would result in the need to achieve 44.112 biodiversity credits, in order to satisfy policy requirements. This seems highly ambitious, given the level of density that will need to be achieved across the Core Site to meet NEC strategy objectives. We will continue to make representations on this point as the NEC AAP progresses. GCSP must also consider alternatives to on-site provision where the necessary biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved on site. This could include a range of options including biodiversity net gain ‘credits’ being able to be purchased from other sites.



1.15 Ultimately, the aim of BNG is to leave the natural environment in a measurably better condition than beforehand. Therefore, if it can be robustly demonstrated that on-site provision is not achievable, the opportunity to measurably improve the natural environment of other appropriate receptor sites through off-site provision should still have a significant value attached to it.

Policy WS/HD: Creating Healthy New Developments

SUPPORT

1.16 We broadly support the 10 principles for creating healthy places. The vision for North-East Cambridge is of a healthy, inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a vibrant mix of high quality homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods.
1.17 One of the five strategic objectives of the NEC AAP is for a healthy and safe neighbourhood and notes the principles of the Health New Towns programme.

Policy WS/MU: Meanwhile Uses During Long Term redevelopments

SUPPORT

1.18 We support the inclusion of a Meanwhile Use policy and agree that it can play an important role on strategic development sites. Phases of development can occur over a significant period of time, and therefore utilisation of vacant/redundant land/buildings for social and/or economic purposes can help activate an area and provide short/medium term benefits that might not otherwise be realised.

Policy GP/LC: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character

COMMENT

1.19 The policy notes that ‘the edges of Cambridge and the villages are an important area of transition which require sensitive landscaping to protect the setting of the settlements and to provide a well- defined edge which respects townscape and the countryside beyond’.
1.20 The Core Site at North-East Cambridge will need to be planned to a high density in order to fully achieve the the strategic objectives of the NEC AAP, as well as to hit the quantum of development required under Homes England’s Housing & Infrastructure Fund. This will require a number of buildings that are taller than may otherwise be commonly found in the north of Cambridge (including surrounding villages, such as Milton). The masterplan for the Core Site will take great care in how its development edges interface with the landscape and setting of nearby settlements, as well as adjoining ‘bad neighbour’ uses currently in existence. The policy will need to recognise the strategic objectives of NEC AAP and avoid imposing conditions that could unreasonably restrict development.

Policy GP/QD: Achieving High Quality Development

SUPPORT



Policy GP/QP: Establishing High Quality Landscape and Public Realm

SUPPORT


Policy J/NE: New Employment Development Proposals

SUPPORT

1.21 We broadly support the intent of the policy but consider it essential that GCSP takes a more ambitious approach in seeking to capture and accommodate the substantial demand in office, R&D, lab and associated manufacturing space in the Greater Cambridge area. There is a need to provide sufficient supply in order to meet the balanced homes/jobs requirements and to reflect the high employment density and employment skills these uses engender.
1.22 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Spatial Options Assessment (Housing and Employment Relationships Nov 2021), upon which the homes and jobs growth of the First Proposals has been based (‘Central Growth’), considered a Higher Growth option of 78,742 jobs in the Plan Period. It
noted that ‘this is a plausible but more aspirational growth outcome’. We believe that the Higher Growth option should be pursued to reflect the Combined Authority’s commitment to doubling GVA by 2040 and capitalise on the significant appetite for research/knowledge-based, commercial development in the City.

Policy J/AW: Affordable Workspace and Creative Industries

SUPPORT

Policy H/HD: Housing Density

SUPPORT

Policy H/CB: Self and Custom-build Homes

OBJECT

1.23 The concern we have with this policy is the ability for the Core Site scheme to comply with the amount of Self-build/custom build being sought, given the high-density development that is envisaged. We would seek reference in the policy to wording that reflects the relevant policy in the NEC AAP i.e. to support ‘custom-finish’ as well.


Policy I/ST: Sustainable Transport and Connectivity
SUPPORT

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.

See attached document.

The approach to high quality landscape and public realm is supported. A minor comment is made on the last bullet point of the policy, which sets out the need to ‘provide appropriate types of open space whether in urban or more rural places that link into other sequences of existing or new landscape spaces and wider settings’. It is queried what will be the measure of ‘appropriate’ and particularly whether in relation to Policy BG/EO certain thresholds and types of open space provision will be required dependent upon scale of development.

The approach to high quality landscape and public realm is supported. A minor comment is made on the last bullet point of the policy, which sets out the need to ‘provide appropriate types of open space whether in urban or more rural places that link into other sequences of existing or new landscape spaces and wider settings’. It is queried how the measure of ‘appropriate’ will be tested and applied given the significant prospects of variety in how this term is applied.

We support the point about prioritising pedestrian movement. We recognise a difficult challenge in managing the needs of different users, for example allowing sufficient safe space for pedestrians and wheelchair users while allowing somewhere for delivery vehicles, electric scooters and bikes, and taxis to pull up. Some more thought needs to be given to making footways porous for pedestrians, but
protecting them from motorised vehicles. One example might be the provision of inset bays for drop-off of people and goods (with appropriate deterrents against use for general parking in line with Policy I/EV).
How is the local plan going to treat anti-terror architecture, for example the anti-cyclist barrier on Kings
Parade? If this is temporary, as the council claims, the replacement should be planned out and subject to consultation.
We want to see widespread implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. In particular, the Local Plan should be setting out a plan for low-traffic movement around the city centre, progressing the Making Space for People SPD, and 15 minute neighbourhoods.
The Oxford adopted local plan has a section (V4) on the strategic importance of district and local shopping centres for reducing travel time, and the character and uses of these. Some of the transport problems in Cambridge seem to be to do with people driving to shops which only have one outlet in the city centre and it seems to be worth trying to decentralise this.