I/DI: Digital infrastructure

Support superfast and 5G roll out 9Openreach programme for rual connectivity by 2026.

This is essential for home working and for new settlements.

The Trumpington Residents' Association notes that there are references to support "via multiple providers" and "in all cases, to encourage competition and consumer choice, this will include the provision of multiple ducts to enable several providers to access the site" (both page 322), but in our experience in the Southern Fringe we are aware that this may not happen. The infrastructure would be in place for early residents, who should not be expected to live without connectively for months, as was the case in some areas of the Southern Fringe.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

We support this policy.

We support the proposal to increase the quality and availability of broadband and mobile coverage. This is important for enabling a thriving low carbon economy, because it reduces the need to travel, and improves the quality of life while reducing carbon emissions, congestion and road building (with its associated embodied carbon and habitat destruction)

Gigabit capable broadband connectivity should be download speeds of *at least* 1Gbps, not “up to”. This wording provides a loophole and doesn’t match the intention. It should be mandated that new developments have at least 1Gbps capable connectivity, even if the service level chosen by the consumer is lower. Anything less is not sufficient investment for increased demands from home working etc.

It should be mandated that developers supply CAT6 network points in every room in new dwellings to allow hard wiring equipment. The current trend to rely on wifi results in contention and poor service in high density developments.

Provisions for digital infrastructure sound sensible.

Supportive but developments need to look at next generation infrastructure to support infrastructure likely in 15 years without major changes.

Using wide conduit (for example) should prevent roads pavements been dug up again when new gen is needed.

The extensive comment related to digital infrastructure is welcomed. It is disappointing however that developers are not required to consider Gbit connections at all sites:

“That housing developers are obliged to provide a gigabit-capable connection unless the cost to the housing developer of providing connectivity exceeds £2,000 per connection, or the network operator declines to provide a connection.” The UK Government has invested heavily in the OneWeb company to provide gigabit connections in remote areas. Cambridgeshire needs to support similar ventures to deliver gigabit connections in areas where fibre connections are not cost effective.

The policy direction should confirm whether all development is required to provide a ‘Connectivity Statements’, or whether the policy direction is intended for major developments. If the latter, floorspace, and dwelling thresholds should be stated, to provide applicants with clarity.

Shepreth Parish Council (SPC) supports the expansion of fibre optic broadband in the villages.

Whilst we support the aspirations of the policy and Countryside recognise the importance of the necessary digital infrastructure to support new developments, it is important that the eventual policy wording recognises to what degree these elements are under the control of the developer themselves as opposed to statutory undertakers etc.

Infrastructure policies
86. CPRE are very concerned about current infrastructure proposals for the Cambridge region and the damage and cost they are likely to cause.
87. CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.
88. CPRE believes that the current local government structure in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with
four different authorities claiming responsibility for some aspects of transport planning and delivery,
coupled with the divided responsibility for rail infrastructure between Network Rail and East West Rail
Company Ltd, prevents any form of joined-up thinking about transport.
89. CPRE believes that all public transport planning in the county should be practically and actually brought
under the control of the Combined Authority with delivery by the County Council, National Highways and
Network Rail as appropriate.
90. CPRE are particularly concerned by the activities of the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). Its
proposed busways will be a disaster for the countryside and communities and an expensive duplication of
facilities that could be provided by road and rail using mostly existing infrastructure. The responsibilities of
this body should be re-allocated to those identified in paragraph 89 above in order that the GCP can be
disbanded.
91. CPRE are concerned that East-West Rail has failed to consider local transport needs in its planning and as a
consequence is currently following a route in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire which will maximise
damage to the countryside, deliver the least useful local transport facility and not integrate well with the
main rail network. Local MPs have taken up this case with government but so far to no avail. The danger is
that the Treasury will halt the project because of lack of return on investment and Cambridge will be left
without the core of what could have been a climate-friendly metro service.
92. There is a desperate need for an integrated transport plan for the whole county and the current approach
will not realise one.
93. CPRE supports Policy I/DI: Digital infrastructure.

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

This is a summary of comments received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under this policy residential developments will be expected to demonstrate that they have engaged with a range of providers to upgrade infrastructure to deliver gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure. The policy also requires residential developments will also deliver dedicated telecommunications ducting to facilitate the delivery of competitive fibre broadband services.

The Council should not impose new electronic communications requirements beyond the provision of infrastructure as set out in statutory Building Regulations. In the Budget of March 2020, the Government confirmed future legislation to ensure that new build homes are built with gigabit-capable broadband. The Government will amend Part R “Physical Infrastructure for High Speed Electronic Communications Networks” of the Building Regulations 2010 to place obligations on housing developers to work with network operators to install gigabit broadband, where this can be done within a commercial cost cap. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has outlined its intentions on the practical workings of this policy, which will apply to all to new builds. Any type of technology may be used, which is able to provide speeds of over 1000 Mbps. All new build developments will be equipped with the physical infrastructure to support gigabit-capable connections from more than one network operator.

The Council’s approach is therefore unnecessary and repetitive of Building Regulations and should not be taken forward into the local plan.

This policy sets out the need for applicants to submit a ‘‘Connectivity Statement’ with a planning application to demonstrate how their proposed digital infrastructure will meet policy requirements’ set out within the policy. This covers broadband, mobile phones, small cell mobile communications technology and publicly accessible Wi-fi. The latter three points provide thresholds of development that trigger the need for this information, but the first point on broadband does not. Whilst it is assumed that the intention of this is to therefore apply to all development, clarity should be provided.

Whilst we support the aspirations of the policy and Countryside recognise the importance of the necessary digital infrastructure to support new developments, it is important that the eventual policy wording recognises to what degree these elements are under the control of the developer themselves as opposed to statutory undertakers.

We support this initiative and would like the policy to be worded clearly to show that it is inclusive to the whole community.
Digital infrastructure should align with best practice for futureproofing in order to ensure that incentives to work without the necessity to use car transport are clearly established.