STRATEGY

What seems to be missed is that all of the development (housing, moving a sewage works etc) you are proposing in order to make Cambridge carbon neutral, in and of itself, consumes carbon ... and lots of it! I feel that the whole of the development needs to be relooked at - we really don't have the environmental capacity (from a carrying capacity point of view) to cope with all of those extra houses/people.

Climate change of paramount importance and any loss of natural biodiversity we have in our region should be guarded.

Far too much housing growth is planned for the GCSP over the next 21 years detrimentally affecting the carbon budget. Water supply is already a serious concern for the existing housing and this problem needs to be addressed before adding more housing/development in the area

More joined up working on levelling up the country needs to be done. Too much growth in any one area is not sustainable living. There are plenty of brown field sites across the country where there is naturally greater rainfall to sustain more development providing jobs and homes

EWR as a means of supplying transport from Cambourne to Cambridge is an environmental catastrophe for South Cambridgeshire. There are less destructive light rail or electric buses that can more cheaply and with less environmental damage provide the connectivity between Cambourne and Cambridge

Ok

Better transport for Cambourne can be achieved by the GCP City Deal. EWR heavy rail is a disaster for the environment, with polluting diesel, CO2 emissions from construction and running the railway. Planning blight, destruction of the countryside along it’s current preferred southern route into Cambridge. If EWR goes ahead then it should follow the CBRR route using trench technology to protect any nearby communities

Scale of development proposed is too much. Very strict requirements on CO2 emissions from house building and transport is crucial. The CO2 budget will already be used up by the existing housing. Any climate goals set by yourselves are destroyed by EWR if it goes ahead.

Water efficiency MUST be a top priority for any new developments, Cambridgeshire is one of the areas of the country with the least rainfall.

For the low-lying Fen Land areas where flooding is definitely going to happen by 2100 all house building needs to be built to mitigate against flooding

Green Belt MUST be protected and enhanced. The EWR project will destroy valuable essential Green Belt

It is essential to protect the best agricultural land the low-lying Fen Land will be flooded by 2100. The agricultural land in South Cambridgeshire is known as the “bread basket of England” we already import 40% of our food. The best grades of agricultural land MUST be protected. EWR will destroy valuable agricultural land on it’s preferred southern route into Cambridge this should NOT be supported by the GCSP

Quotas of affordable housing MUST be adhered to.

X

I agree with the aim of providing policies protecting green spaces as they are very important for people’s quality of life also protecting those qualities that makes Cambridge City a great and unique place to live , most particularly the setting of the historic centre, and its relationship with the countryside beyond with a network of green spaces to the west complementing the built environment

Infrastructure: include food and other shops in the facilities.
Ninewells, GB1 and GB2 are three examples of developments permitted without any local shop provision, and without direct pedestrian or cycle access to the nearest local shopping, healthcare and educational facilities.

I would like to question the overall assumptions about growth. Cambridge was born as a University Town and has a beautiful Medieval city centre. It's already grown something like 20% over the last 20 years, and you are proposing to double the growth rate over the next 20. This would completely change the nature of the city, from a small city with a historic heart and a scientific and technological focus to a large city. I would hate living in a large city, and many people alonside me have moved here for its peaceful and countryside nature. Please revise your growth outlook. People who work here don't need to live here. Please focus on building small, independent houses in land that is already destined to house building. Please don't build on the Green belt. If the Biomedical campus has to grow, let's focus on connecting it well to other places through public transport.

We feel that the areas around Cambridge are good, logical sites. We are not so sure about the village sites such as Melbourn as this has endured significant development in recent years with no infrastructure and facilities, putting pressure on both schools and roads in our District.

We feel that the areas around Cambridge are good, logical sites. We are not so sure about the village sites such as Melbourn as this has endured significant development in recent years with no infrastructure and facilities, putting pressure on both schools and roads in our District.

I challenge the need for growth. It is acknowledged that Cambridge needs more affordable housing. Why make the situation worse by growing the jobs. It doesn't make sense to encourage more people to come to Cambridge.

Put the new jobs up north. We don't have an employment problem in Cambridge.

Vision and Aims are supported. However, the Plan appears to predominantly focus on new growth. There should be equal focus on supporting infrastructure and sustainment of existing communities.

The vision and aims are laudable, however it will be obvious to the majority of readers that the best way to achieve them is NOT to build more developments as in the plan, but to focus funding on the enhancement of existing communities, green spaces, places, and infrastructure. Transition to net zero is best achieved by limiting the cause of emission (the consumption economy), not by expanding the consumption economy and then attempting to mitigate the harmful effects.

Quite clearly the aims are better represented as meeting the appetite of the UK for economic growth, and for continued concentration of that economic activity in specific areas, whilst making efforts to mitigate some (but not all) of the negative ecological and social effects.

Hence, it is unrealistic to suggest that the primary aims are those stated. A true and honest description of the aims might help citizens give more meaningful feedback, and potentially enable a better-informed political debate around the planning process.

If the proposals really aim to improve wellbeing and social inclusion, biodiversity and green spaces and create “great places”, they will need to be much more specific and prescriptive about the determinants of those outcomes, over and above the specification of the homes and locations.

Placemaking, for example, involves the structuring of access, facilities, open areas, and activities: not simply the sum of a number of housing units. It is clear to anyone familiar with modern development practice that developers care little for such aspects, since they focus on sales on individual housing units.

The same is true for the design of communities which foster wellbeing and social inclusion: these require much more than a minimum house price and access to a play area. In fact existing segregated developments only serve to worsen social inclusivity.
Leaving these critically important aspects to the discretion of the developer, to meet policies and targets framed as “should”, “take account of ”, “address”, “enhance” etc, will lead to communities where these aspects either don’t exist or are treated as afterthoughts.

The dominant metric for developers is sale value and profit. A core principle of Doughnut Economics is that society will only pay due attention to enhancing quality of life and to reducing harm to the ecosystem if it sets and measures against specific metrics for key aspects and objectives. Many of the policies have no specific metrics, so they simply have no teeth, and are valueless as a result.

I strongly object to the level of growth proposed in the new Draft Local Plan on the following grounds: inadequate water supply, effect on national food security, failure to minimise climate change, likely irreparable damage to ecosystems, carbon emissions resulting from construction and traffic, lack of an integrated public transport system, and increased congestion leading to more pollution.

Hallam Land Management (HLM) support the Vision and aims set out in the First Proposals.

SmithsonHill supports the expressed aim to encourage a flourishing and mixed economy, including the objective to “maintain the area’s global reputation for innovation”. It also supports the provision of “significant quantities of housing” which is essential to sustain the economic objectives.

Greater Cambridge has demonstrated the effectiveness of the economic ‘clustering’ phenomenon in particular with a distinct established southern life sciences cluster, involving major business parks with world leading facilities, which are continuing to grow strongly.

The importance of this area is recognised and identified by the local plan first proposals document, including through the definition of the “rural southern cluster” policy area.

The November 2020 sustainability appraisal identifies and assesses an option for “supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster)”. This option “performs well” in the appraisal.

Accordingly it is considered that it is logical for the vision and aims of the plan to include reference to achieving a balance spatially in the location of jobs and homes, which will be particularly relevant in sustaining the continuing economic growth and success of the rural southern cluster.

We support the vision statement “for the well known characteristics of the historic core of Cambridge to be complemented by active, compact neighbourhoods – new and old. This means providing opportunities to regenerate areas that aren’t yet reaching their potential, and creating new city neighbourhoods which have the critical mass of homes, jobs and services to create thriving communities, making best use of brownfield and safeguarded land.”

We support the vision that the New Towns agreed in the 2018 plan must develop into great places to live and work. However this vision should also recognise the essential role that cultural and leisure activities play in creating great places (we suggest the inclusion of the word “play”). This will also be essential in order to take pressure off of Cambridge, which will not be able to cope if it is to serve the leisure needs of the additional 73,000 population created by this plan.

We appreciate that this is not a draft plan and we very much hope that the draft plan will set out an inspiring vision for what greater Cambridge will become - and that this vision recognises the importance of landscape, heritage and nature in continuing to ensure that Cambridge is a special place to live, work, study and visit.

We very much welcome and support the efforts to make this a much greener plan than those that have come before it and there is much that is to be commended. However, large scale new development is not yet zero-carbon or genuinely sustainable and therefore the more of it you have the more harm you inflict upon the environment, heritage and local communities – and the greater the challenges and costs of addressing those problems. There seems to us, to be a contradiction between the scale of development proposed and the aspirations for the environment, heritage and local communities.

If the councils are to proceed with such a significant level of development (equivalent to building two Bury St Edmunds in 20 years) it is essential that the policies in the plan are as strong as they can possibly be in order to protect and benefit the environment, heritage and local communities. The draft plan will also need to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that development results in the financial investment that will be needed to protect and benefit the environment, heritage and local communities. We are concerned that currently there are not sufficient mechanisms to achieve this. For example ensuring that all development contributes towards increasing the provision of large-scale green spaces so that the amount of this essential resource keeps pace with population growth. Significant investment is needed in environmental infrastructure such as water supply, sewage treatment and waste treatment.

USS owns Grand Arcade & Guildhall Chambers in Cambridge. USS therefore has an active interest in planning policy in Greater Cambridge and has provided comments on the relevant sections and policies in the Local Plan consultation. USS requests to be kept informed on the progress of the Local Plan.

USS supports the overarching vision for Greater Cambridge to be a place where a big decrease in climate impacts comes with a big increase in the quality of everyday life for all communities.
USS strongly supports the Great Places aim, in particular the reference to creating a place where people want to live, work and play.

USS also strongly supports the Jobs aim, in particular the encouragement of a flourishing and mixed economy in Greater Cambridge which includes a wide range of jobs.

The institutions that comprise the constituent parts of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus have formed a corporate entity (CBC Limited) for the purpose of speaking and acting as a single voice on all matters relating to the development and enhancement of the Campus. CBC Limited has produced a long term vision for the evolution of the Campus into a sustainable, mixed use Innovation District, which requires further development at the Campus and its phased expansion onto land to the south (the 2050 Vision).

The landowners south of the Campus whose land is identified for development comprise two landowners (Cambridgeshire County Council – as a landowner – and a private family trust) who have come together to work with CBC Limited to enable the sustainable development of the Campus in accordance with the principles of the 2050 Vision (the landowners). The family trust and the County Council have land identified for development within the Campus (known as Phase 3, which was allocated in 2018) and for the potential expansion of the Campus (Phase 4 as identified in the Preferred Options).

Pigeon broadly supports the Vision and Aims identified, but suggest the following amendments.

Vision: A strong emphasis is rightly placed on the need for new development to minimise carbon emissions and reduce reliance on travel by private car. However, the Vision fails to mention the current high levels of economic in-commuting by private car into Greater Cambridge, which contributes significantly to carbon emissions and congestion. To achieve the desired big decrease in climate impact, the Vision should clearly articulate the desire to reverse this scenario.

Aims (Homes): To better reflect the Vision this aim should be amended to look to provide sufficient homes across Greater Cambridge which meets both future and existing needs, and in turn promotes more sustainable commuting patterns which reduce carbon emissions and congestion.

To create the ‘thriving neighbourhoods’ set out in the Vision there is a need to provide a far greater number of affordable homes. Whilst the aim of providing ‘significant quantities of housing that is affordable’ is applauded, this does not go far enough. The Aim should be more ambitious, and look to meet the full affordable housing needs across Greater Cambridge. Such an approach would be positive..

On a similar note, whilst Pigeon supports the provision of different kinds of homes to suit diverse communities, we encourage the Plan to go further and look to meet these needs in all the communities where the need arises from. This would allow local communities to grow sustainably, and better align with the Vision of creating thriving neighbourhoods.

Response to Local Plan objectives

The East West Rail element of the OxCam Arc proposals will obliterate most objectives of the Greater Cambridgeshire Local Plan for this part of South Cambridgeshire.

The Eversdens are in the western gateway of the Local Plan where “Green infrastructure is the network of green spaces and routes, landscapes, biodiversity, water bodies and heritage, which provide a range of benefits for people, wildlife and the planet.” (Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure)

East West Rail's current proposed route is wholly contrary to Policy BG/GI. The proposed rail route will have a huge, adverse environmental impact for our villages and will bring a big decrease in the quality of everyday life for all our communities. The railway will create a green ghetto, 17km of embankments, 10 metres high in places in a wall from Cambourne to Shelford through bio-diverse and beautiful greenbelt and will permanently destroy habitats for life, both human and wild.

You state that “The ambition for the Arc is to build a better economic, social and environmental future for the area. There is an opportunity to make the Arc an even more beautiful place to live, work and visit, by making high-quality, well-connected and sustainable communities.”

This is manifestly not the case for the 14,000 residents in the new green ghetto that the proposed railway line creates between Cambourne and Shelford.

Additionally, the Eversdens are located in a 10 square mile area to which the Local Plan, the County Council and the GCP have turned their backs, in relation to local infrastructure. The Eversdens is in desperate need of a cycle path to Comberton to create a better social and environmental future for our area.

Our area is being sacrificed to provide connectivity for the Arc but will receive no benefit and has been airbrushed out of the Local Plan.


[for and on behalf of the Little & Great Eversden Parish Councils]