STRATEGY

The Vision lacks any reference to Cambridge as a centre of excellence and world leader in the fields of higher education and research. That is what makes Cambridge distinctive and successful. The aims relating to climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes and infrastructure are supported, but overall aim should be to nurture Cambridge’s development as an national and global centre of excellence in education and research. The Plan should set out effective policies, proposals and strategies to ensure continued development in those fields for the next 20 years.

We support the Plan’s broad vision for the future of Greater Cambridge, ensuring sustainable development. We support the seven aims for the Plan, namely: climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes and infrastructure.

I live in the Ninewells development and the proposed growth development will impact on my quality of life

I have concerns around the impact of the proposed growth on both ecological safety, e.g. aquifers & water supply, and on accessibility and congestion, as I already experience difficulty getting to and from Ninewells, due to road congestion. I understand the Ninewells nature Reserve, currently a wildlife haven and corridor to rare species, will become surrounded by urban growth, reducing public access to green space for fresh air and exercise. The green belt needs to remain this way, providing current level of access to Queen Edith population, and support sustainability of natural resources and wildlife access.

Marshall fully endorses and embraces the vision and aims of the ‘First Proposals’ consultation and is committed to embedding these aims at the heart of the vision for Cambridge East. Marshall has prepared separate detailed representations in response to the individual sections and policies that relate to the Development Strategy and to Cambridge East. The key points outlined in Marshall’s representations and how these relate to the Local Plan’s vision and aims are summarised below:

- Marshall strongly supports the allocation of Cambridge East for a truly mixed-use development which will comprise a significant number of new jobs, homes, community services / facilities and infrastructure. Marshall is pleased that the importance of the Site to Greater Cambridge’s growth strategy is recognised through this significant allocation.

- Whilst the Greater Cambridge Local Plan has planned for more homes than required by the standard method, Marshall considers that the Development Strategy is currently understating growth and could go even further to maximise Greater Cambridge’s economic potential.

- The safeguarded land at Cambridge East is one of the largest brownfield sites located outside of the Green Belt on the edge of Cambridge. It is one of the most sustainably located sites and represents the best opportunity to meet the GCSP’s Local Plan aims through the creation of a new, but complementary quarter for Cambridge. The opportunity to optimise the capacity of Cambridge East and maximise the site’s social, economic and environmental credentials should be thoroughly explored. Marshall considers that the scale of growth potential that could be achieved together with the quality of the Site justify optimising the allocation at Cambridge East and would justify the allocation of additional land east of Airport Way.

- Cambridge East provides a significant opportunity to address inequalities that exist to the east of Cambridge. Cambridge is one of the most unequal cities in the UK and has some of the least affordable housing, with pockets of deprivation. Cambridge East has the scale to achieve transformational change in the east of the City that will significantly improve the lives of local residents through the provision of access to skills development, education and life-long learning, a range of job opportunities, affordable homes and a range of cultural, leisure and retail options.

- Cambridge East also provides an opportunity to address the current lack of cross-city connectivity through the provision of a transformational transport strategy.

- Cambridge East is being planned to achieve an exemplar sustainable development which can act as a flagship for the Councils’ objectives. By pioneering new technologies and considering the long term welfare of our planet and its people, Cambridge East can create a transformative green infrastructure connecting the City with the countryside that sets the new global standard for sustainability. The potential for the sustainability benefits of Cambridge East would be even greater if development also includes land east of Airport Way, enabling planning at a genuinely strategic scale.

- In any event, however, Marshall is keen to work collaboratively with the GCSP and local communities to establish the best policy approach to the Site identified in the Preferred Options, ahead of the publication of the draft Local Plan in Autumn 2022.

Our client supports broad principles which underpin the stated ‘vision’ and ‘aims’ of the GCLP. Indeed, reducing climate change and minimising carbon emissions are key considerations for the planning system and the wider world. Notwithstanding this in principle support, there is still a need for the GCLP to strike a sustainable balance between focussing on reducing climate change and safeguarding the vitality and vibrancy of existing sustainable villages in South Cambridgeshire.

The ‘vision’ and ‘aims’ of the GCLP are silent on supporting the long-term vitality and vibrancy of rural communities; of which there are many in South Cambridgeshire. The GCLP should encourage proportionate housing growth supported by investment in local infrastructure at established rural sustainable settlements. The ability to strike a balance through the GCLP is entirely possible and appropriate given that a number of established sustainable settlements are served by high quality existing infrastructure which reduces reliance on the private car (bus services, railway stations, Guided Busway and Park & Ride facilities) and could benefit from investment in new sustainable transport infrastructure such as East West Rail and proposals falling out of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

The ‘vision’ and ‘aims’ should be amended to make reference to the GCLP “Supporting rural communities to ensure that they thrive, and existing key services are safeguarded by encouraging sustainable and proportionate growth in hand with further investment with community infrastructure”.

The representations to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan are attached in full, supported by a vision document for the site, 'Land west of Beach Road, Cottenham'.

We support the aims of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, as set out at Section 2 of the Plan, to respond to:

• Climate Change;
• Bio-Diversity & Green Spaces;
• Wellbeing and Social Inclusion;
• Great Places;
• Jobs;
• Homes; and
• Infrastructure.

Recommendation: Support

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Targets (P27)

Neighbourhood planning is specifically aimed at ensuring communities retain direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. It seems wholly inappropriate therefore for the Greater Cambridge Plan seeks to centralise these decisions stating that “…As such we are not relying on neighbourhood areas providing additional homes to meet our requirements.” Similarly, it is appropriate that emerging policies in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan reflect those made in Neighbourhood Plans.

Recommendation: Where an appropriate case can be made, in the context of national planning policy, Neighbourhood Plans should be afforded the ability to consider and bring forward housing developments appropriate to their needs and objectives.

What Alternatives did we Consider (P28)

It is not clear that alternative patterns of growth were considered in preparing the plan. The rationale for relegating Cottenham in the settlement hierarchy (see below) is unclear and to this end it is similarly not clear to what extent retention of Cottenham as a Major Rural Centre has been considered.

Recommendation: A refined strategy should be considered that allows an appropriate proportion of growth to take place in sustainable locations to compliment that being focused to strategic allocations.

The vision and aims are generally supported. However, we feel that the necessary integration between the location of new development (homes and jobs) and infrastructure needs to be expressed more clearly. There are clear advantages in locating major development and planned or committed transport infrastructure in close proximity.

The term ‘big’ should be defined further in the text to avoid ambiguity.
Concerns over the reliance on the private car will lessen as the plan progresses owing to the uptake in electric vehicles displacing petrol/diesel cars and the replacement of fossil fuels by 2035 as part of the UK Government’s Net Zero Strategy. Whilst this could be considered as part of the review of the Plan (once adopted) it is an important consideration which may impact the strategy of the whole plan particularly in respect of development within rural areas.

The Plan should be clear about how it will deliver on the ambitions of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. The National Trust supports the strategic spatial planning approach being applied to the Ox-CamArc but it appears that a substantial amount of housing may be planned for and delivered through the Local Plan at an earlier stage due to conflicting timescales.

Vision and Aims

The Vision
The Commissioners for England strongly endorse the Councils’ vision of Greater Cambridge that is focused on decreasing climate impacts and increasing the quality of everyday life for all communities. The vision as set out at page 21 of the First Proposals, identifies that the Councils are working to prepare a Plan that takes “inspiration from what is unique about our area and embraces the bold new approaches that will help us achieve this vision”.

The factors that equate to the area’s uniqueness are woven throughout the First Proposals. The First Proposals acknowledge that agriculture is a key economic and environmental resource for the Greater Cambridge area (page 235) and that the area sits at the heart of several economic corridors including; the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (“the OxCam Arc”), the UK Innovation Corridor and the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor (Page 14). The document also highlights the area’s global reputation for innovation (page 21). As identified at page 25 of the First Proposals, the ‘Centres for Cities’ report published in 2021 describes Cambridge as one of the most important research and innovation-led employment hubs in the UK and in recent years, it states, the city started from a strong, well-educated employment base and moved from strength to strength. Recent fast jobs growth has resulted in implications for housing demand (as identified at page 25 of the First Proposals).

In establishing a vision for the Site, the Commissioners have taken inspiration from the unique characteristics of the area, as summarised above. The bold approach which the Commissioners have taken in creating a vision for the Site, which would align with the Councils’ vision for the Greater Cambridge area, is set out within the accompanying Vision Document and discussed further in response to Policy S/CB.

The Aims of the Plan
In turning to look at the Councils’ aims for the Plan which relate to: climate change; biodiversity and green space; wellbeing and social inclusion; great places; jobs; homes; and infrastructure, all align closely with the five priority areas as included within the accompanying Sustainability Charter prepared by Hoare Lea on behalf of the Commissioners, in relation to the Site. The Sustainability Charter has helped underpin the formulation of the Vision Document and the Commissioners’ sustainability related aspirations for the Site. Further information regarding the Sustainability Charter is provided in response to Policy S/CB found later within this document.

The Commissioners support the ethos of the aims but, as is the requirement of the NPPF (paragraph 16 (b)), for Plans to be aspiration but deliverable, the Commissioners consider that, particularly in relation to ‘homes’ the Councils could go further to align with this national policy. The housing aim simply states that the Local Plan plans “for enough housing to meet our needs”. Given that paragraph 60 of the NPPF identifies that it is the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and that the local housing needs assessment only identifies a minimum number of homes needed, this aim should be updated to be more aspirational. It is suggested that the aim is amended to “…for enough housing to meet our needs, as a minimum”.

Trumpington Meadows Land Company (‘TMLC’) a joint venture between Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (GBI) and Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) owns the site at Trumpington South in Cambridge. TMLC 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. TMLC requests to be kept informed on the progress of the Local Plan.

TMLC 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.

TMLC strongly supports the Great Places aim, in particular the reference to creating a place where people want to live, work and play.

TMLC 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.

TMLC also strongly supports the aim of ensuring enough housing is planned for to meet the area’s needs.

Vision and aims
The vision and aims appear to be a broadly sensible approach, however there are two further important aims, which should be explicitly recognised:
Avoiding extensive development in villages and absolute preservation of the Green Belt should form two further explicit aims.

The Local Plan Big Vision says “We want Greater Cambridge to be a place where a big decrease in our climate impacts comes with a big increase in the quality of everyday life for all our communities.”

It is hard to disagree with this statement and I support the focus in the First Proposals on climate issues. However, whilst a decrease in climate impacts should, in and of itself, lead to an increase in the quality of everyday life (for example, through improvement in air quality), this will not lead to the all round improvement in quality of life that is required especially by Greater Cambridge’s poorest and most socially disadvantaged communities. I wonder whether the climate focus has become too singular. So, although one of the Plan’s aims is “wellbeing and social inclusion” I have not found anything in the Plan which seeks to explain the concrete steps Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (“GCSP”) envisages to achieve this. There seems to me to be more to it than “good growth”, although outside this area GCSP’s role may be mainly as a facilitator.

The Plan appears to estimate that the economic growth of Greater Cambridge will continue at the rate it has over recent years, without examining whether this will lead to a sustainable and more equal community or is otherwise a good thing. Secondly, there is limited explanation as to how GCSP sees the Local Plan as contributing to a solution to the acute problem of housing affordability that exists in Cambridge (for example, but not limited to, for key workers). The First Proposals do acknowledge that there needs to be the right mix of homes, including affordable housing. It is not clear whether this includes social housing. It must. Nor is it clear how the match between jobs growth and housing growth achieves such a solution, given that many of the sort of jobs Greater Cambridge’s businesses create bring new residents into the area. Thirdly, it is not at all obvious what community benefits or infrastructure GCSP sees as necessary to support the proposed level of growth or how they will be funded (for example, through section 106 contributions) and when they will be delivered. There is mention of an Infrastructure Development Plan (for example, in the “Infrastructure” topics paper), but I understand that this is under development and will be refined as the Local Plan is developed. Fourthly, Greater Cambridge needs to address the fact that it is seen as a social mobility cold-spot and find and implement appropriate solutions to this problem, including through its planning framework and decisions. Fifthly, whilst the Plan’s “wellbeing and social inclusion” aim acknowledges that GCSP expects a very significant increase in the age of Greater Cambridge’s population, it is not made explicit what implications this has, for example, for health infrastructure, including the region’s hospitals.

It is not clear enough in the First Proposals where major areas of employment are envisaged, by contrast with areas of housing growth (see figure 4 on page 22 of the First Proposals). This is an important omission, given that, for example, East West Rail’s preferred southern approach is posited upon major housing growth to the south of Cambridge and a belief that that is where Greater Cambridge’s major employment centres are and will continue to be.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Commission on Climate’s October 2021 Final Report was published very shortly before the First Proposals consultation. I have mentioned one of its recommendations below, but have no doubt that some of its findings will be relevant to future development of the Plan.

The aims of the plan are broadly supported.

Under the aims we would suggest an amendment to the Homes aim that states “significant quantities of housing that is affordable to rent and buy” we suggest this is changed to “sufficient quantities of affordable housing to meet the identified need required for a prosperous Cambridge”.

Cambridge Water, and all water companies, have a statutory obligation to plan for predicted growth in the region, as laid out in the Water Resource Planning Guidelines issues by Defra. Cambridge Water is currently developing our next water resources management plan (WRMP), for publication in 2024. As part of this we update growth forecasts and the associated demand implications. Growth predications are collated from a range of sources including ONS data and local plan information. As such, it is vital that these plans and predictions are robust in order to ensure our planning is appropriate.
It is key that we work closely together to ensure the needs of the region are met – both economically and environmentally. This means that the pace of development, and the profile based on location is also key to ensure Cambridge Water is able to plan and deliver resources in the required locations.
The proposals identify an additional 2,111 homes per year through to 2040. This is higher than our current working assumptions for growth in the region that were developed for our WRMP 2019. The draft local plan also proposes 58,500 new jobs through to 2040. Our current plans include modest and flat growth for non-households, which may not fully reflect the growth in demand resulting from demand associated with these new jobs. As such, the options currently in place to ensure a supply/demand balance need to reviewed and updated, as additional growth creates additional demand for water.
In addition, there is further planned growth in our area through the OxCam Arc, which we need to review in combination with these proposals to ensure a combined plan that addresses all of the needs. However, there is uncertainty with the scale and profile for this.
The following statement is contained within the Sustainability Appraisal, completed by Stantec:
“Greater Cambridge lies within an area of water stress, where water resources are under substantial pressure, which will be exacerbated by new development. The Water Study identified that supplying water for this level of development can be accommodated if regional scale solutions are operational by the mid-2030s, and that interim measures will be necessary beforehand.”
Options discussed in the report to resolve this issue involve water trading across the boundary, as this report and the additional report entitled “Integrated Water Management Study” recognises that all of the Cambridge Water area is classified as “red” by the Environment Agency Abstraction Licence Strategy (2017) meaning there is no water available for new consumptive abstraction licences from groundwater in the Cambridge area. However, the report does not look at the classification of areas that border the Cambridge Water area – these too are classified as red and therefore opportunities to seek additional water in this way are limited. The report also references the Environment Agency abstraction reform programme, which is looking to apply caps to licences based on recent use. Our current WRMP includes licence capping to protect the environment, and this effectively removes headroom for growth in abstractions from the chalk aquifer. As the abstraction reform programme affects all water companies, any additional capacity that is currently available through Anglian Water and Affinity Water licences may also be reduced as a result.
In the “Integrated Water Management Study”, it states:
“It is therefore assumed that the new Local Plan will assume decreasing levels of abstraction with new sources, improved efficiency and less leakage compensating for this and providing for growth. If new sources and other measures are not achieved then there will be deterioration to water habitats. If deterioration is to be avoided, development trajectories may need to be altered until sufficient water is available.”
Cambridge Water is keen to see continued economic stability and growth in our region, and would emphasise to the Greater Cambridge Local Planning team the need for engagement with us to ensure information is shared as early as possible to ensure that both plans can be as accurate as they can be. In addition, we would impress upon the team the need for water efficiency to be a key factor in the new development. We strongly support the proposals that new housing developments must be built to achieve a maximum use of 80 litres per person per day (l/p/d) for households, and fully support achieving BREEAM ‘outstanding’ for non-households, and for domestic and commercial developments to identify and develop opportunities for reducing the demand for potable water supplies – for example, through rainwater harvesting. In addition, we are keen to ensure that any surface water is able to recharge the aquifers and would encourage development of sustainable urban drainage systems to enable this and reduce flooding risks. We would actively encourage any existing applications already in progress to also be subject to these conditions in order to maximise the benefits.
Demand management is an important focus for Cambridge Water – we have an ambitious leakage programme which will see a reduction of 15% in leakage levels between 2020 and 2025, and a further public interest commitment to reduce leakage to 50% of 2017/18 levels by 2050. We also have a public interest commitment to achieve 110 l/p/d consumption by 2050; this is an ambitious target based on the recent impact of COVID-19 on household consumption, which has seen per capital consumption (PCC) increase significantly.
Metering in the Cambridge area is now approximately 72%, and we have plans in place to increase this to 78% by 2025. The classification by the Environment Agency of the region as being seriously water stressed means we are able to explore compulsory metering, provided we have customer support for this. We are currently undertaking an extensive customer engagement programme as part of our WRMP24 consultation and are exploring this element in detail. Other areas we are reviewing as part of demand management include the continued offering of water saving devices, the opportunity for tariffs that could reward customers who use less water, customer education and media campaigns, and the use of temporary restrictions to manage demand proactively.
The additional demand generated through the further proposed growth detailed in the plan can be delivered through our demand management plans in the short term; by lowering demand through reducing leakage and improving water efficiency in our existing and new communities, we can ensure delivery with no additional environmental impact. However, Cambridge Water is facing reductions in our licenced capacity through the review of licences being proposed by the Environment Agency, in order to drive important environmental improvements across our region. This will mean that alternative supply options must be developed in order to continue to deliver the forecasted demand. Cambridge Water is currently developing short, mid and long term options to address this.
Cambridge Water is progressing a significant strategic regional supply option with Anglian Water, which would supply both areas; this reservoir in the Fenland area could currently be available in the mid-2030s. This is obviously a long term option, and in the short and mid-term we are working closely with Anglian Water to identify opportunities for transfers through their grid network. These opportunities could be available between 2025 and 2030, and hence the timing of licence reductions is of critical importance.
Cambridge Water is committed to the reduction of abstraction from chalk aquifers and are also developing a chalk stream flagship restoration project, through involvement with the Defra led chalk stream river restoration group, as well as developing our longer term environmental plans. It is key that the delivery of important environmental improvements is not delayed by any increase in demand caused by additional growth.
Due to the challenges around water availability in the Cambridge region, and the need to reduce abstraction from current sources in order to deliver statutory environmental improvements, it is vital that there is increased collaboration between planning teams in the region and Cambridge Water to ensure that planned growth can be supplied in a sustainable way. The timing and location of individual developments is critical to our planning and we would welcome regular and continued engagement.

We support the seven main aims for the Local Plan that focus on: climate change, biodiversity and green space, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes and infrastructure.

The RSPB fully supports the explicit inclusion of the climate change and biodiversity & greenspaces key aims in the plan, and their inclusion front and centre in the presentation of these aims. Climate mitigation and adaption and a thriving ecosystem in Greater Cambridge are vital and integral to the health and wellbeing of its residents and the long term economic prosperity of the two districts.

We support the seven main aims for the Local Plan that focus on: climate change, biodiversity and green space, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes and infrastructure.

Support is expressed for the Council’s Vision to “create thriving neighbourhoods with the variety of jobs and homes we need; increase nature, wildlife and green spaces; and safeguard our unique heritage and landscapes” (page 20-21).

However, as it currently stands, the proposed vision is centric to the sustainability of the City of Cambridge and the transport patterns involved with commuting. Simultaneously, there is insufficient regard for Greater Cambridgeshire’s rural settlements, with settlements such as Meldreth that by virtue of their infrastructure connectivity and scope for sustainable travel, offer the opportunity to deliver much needed sustainable development.

To ensure that the Vision to “create thriving neighbourhoods with the variety of jobs and homes [that Cambridgeshire] needs” is fully achieved, it is crucial that rural areas receive a suitable amount of development to meet local housing need and enable the benefits of development to reinvigorate and regenerate communities.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports a suitable level of development should being delivered at rural settlements, by stating that “housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”.

With regards to the Council’s aims, support is also expressed towards the provision of ‘Great Places which sustain the unique character of South Cambridgeshire’ and ‘Homes which meet the needs of the diverse community’. The stated aims should be applicable to every settlement class (as listed in the settlement hierarchy), and therefore to fully achieve these aims, it is important that the Council ensure that the needs of rural communities are not overlooked and that suitable development opportunity sites are positively planned for and not predicated from being brought forward through negative, restrictive and unwieldly policies.

The council should consider refining the vision to ensure that it does not ignore or underplay the potential of rural areas and the need for sustainable development in rural areas to meet local needs and support the vitality and viability of rural communities.

Distributing a suitable amount of housing to rural areas of Cambridgeshire would help the council meet its housing requirements in a balanced way. It would also avoid an overreliance on housing allocations at Cambridge.

This is supported by paragraph 62 of the NPPF which seeks to ensure that the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups in the community is reflected in planning policy, including in particular for affordable housing, families with children and older people. In addition, paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that in the delivery of rural housing, “planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.”

Releasing Greenbelt land next to Babraham Road: Greenbelt land is there to protect the countryside. Releasing this land damages the countryside -- of course it does. Otherwise there would be no point in having a Greenbelt. The only environmental justification for releasing it is to provide affordable housing for hospital workers, so that they are not forced to pollute the countryside further by travelling in from the villages. Therefore the houses built for this purpose must _remain_ affordable and available for hospital workers when they change hands later. What legal safeguards are in place to ensure this continuity?

Vision and aims
It is essential that all your policies are rigorously enforced and are not just window dressing.
As a general point, there are many organisations proposing short and long term developments throughout Greater Cambridge and the surrounding areas. The Local Plan must take account of each proposal and ensure full co-ordination.

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

Cambourne Town Council is supportive of the aims set out within the vision.

Teversham PC is concerned about how the number of required housing has been assessed (44,400 seems like a lot). We do not believe there is sufficient infrastructure (roads, schools and hospitals in particular) and capacity for utilities delivery and whilst this might be technically outside of this plan, it is a critical barrier to delivery of the plan. In particular we have concerns about the supply of adequate water and waste water disposal to service the houses in the development strategy.

We seek a significant lowering of the amount of development, and urge greater protection of village separation, with the proposed Airport ("North of Cherry Hinton") site used as an example of the inadequate width of the buffer between settlement and new development.
We have general concerns on new development - larger sites on green space / fields, airport etc. and the way greenbelt is being used to free up brownfield sites. Whilst the wish to minimise the reliance on private car use is understandable, as a means to reducing the carbon footprint, in reality most households will still need a car. In the absence of a car ownership, the house / development will still require many regular vehicles - bin lorries, post, tradespeople.
In the absence of a car / limitations on what can be carried on public transport will also increase the demand and need for numerous taxis, household goods deliveries, grocery deliveries.

The lack of a fully integrated transport policy is disappointing. We think shared taxis such as the ones being trialled in Huntingdon would be worth considering for Cambridge and surrounding villages.

Thousands of new homes, thousands of new residents but no obvious plans to update / expand the A&E department at Addenbrookes which is already in such high demand and under extreme pressure, or GP practices or dentists -a huge problems in Cambridge at the present time.
Additional schools are mentioned, but they seem fairly ad hoc in how they are linked to the various developments. NECAAP being a case in point where the school provision seems to keep changing

Section 2 Aims (P21):

We support the aims of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, as set out at Section 2 of the Plan, to respond to:

• Climate Change;
• Bio-Diversity & Green Spaces;
• Wellbing and Social Inclusion;
• Great Places;
• Jobs;
• Homes; and
• Infrastructure.

Recommendation: Support

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Targets (P27)

Neighbourhood planning is specifically aimed at ensuring communities retain direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. It seems wholly inappropriate therefore for the Greater Cambridge Plan to centralise these decisions stating that “…As such we are not relying on neighbourhood areas providing additional homes to meet our requirements.”

Recommendation: Where an appropriate case can be made, in the context of national planning policy, Neighbourhood Plans should be afforded the ability to bring forward housing developments appropriate to their needs and objectives.

What Alternatives did we Consider (P28)

It is not clear that alternative patterns of growth were considered in preparing the plan. In particular it is not clear if the Plan has considered the benefits of allowing an appropriate proportion of future growth to be located in rural areas to support existing villages.

Recommendation: A refined strategy should be considered that allows an appropriate proportion of growth to take place in sustainable village locations to compliment that being focused to strategic allocations.

The Combined Authority is consulting on its Sustainable Growth Ambition Statement. This considers good growth in the context of six 'capitals', that of Climate and Nature, Reducing Inequality, Innovation, Finance, Infrastructure and Health & Skills. The reflection of those six capitals in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan policies and Sustainability Appraisal is therefore supported.

I am writing to give feedback on the local plan after recently visiting an exhibition.

My view is that you are moving forward with extra housing without a clear idea of how this will impact the rest of the city/wider area. You can't tell us how these developments will affect us, but you want us to tell you what we think - I think you need to do the work and publish clear models showing the impact on traffic and public transport usage and then on the basis of those models ask us what we think. Until that information is available, then I think we should proceed as slowly as central government allows and certainly not seek to accelerate already approved projects.
I agree that the most important factors when considering a new development should be its environmental impact and its impact on local traffic. Building near workplaces and in a way to encourage green travel makes sense, but it will only mitigate the extra travel - you need to tell us how many potential journeys you think these mitigating factors will save and how many journeys you think will still be made. I also agree that encouraging use of public transport is a good thing, but with the scale of the developments proposed the strain on existing public transport infrastructure would be unbearable - again before we can say if we approve of the developments you have to have a plan as to how the public transport system will be transformed to cope with all those extra journeys, and you have to tell us that plan in a clear and easily understood fashion. If the plan is: "build the houses and then see what we need" then the new occupants of the new houses will establish habits around car travel, habits that will be hard to break and the impact on congestion will be severe.
In summary, if you don't provide fuller, better information on the impacts of developments then my response will be "NO" to them all.

Can I also say how extraordinary your webpage on providing feedback is - these two sentences stand out on a page that seems entirely designed to discourage feedback while at the same time saying it welcomes it:
" We would be grateful if you avoided emailing us comments or documents, as we will have to manually enter them into the consultation system and ascribe them to policies or sites."
" If you want to know more about how to comment and how we take comments into account, please join our webinar about the comment process."
Obviously I have ignored the first of these, not out of spite but simply because I could see no other way of providing feedback that wasn't the quick questionnaire.

I am writing to object to the closing of the Consultation on this plan until there is better representation of residents and environmentalists and scientists who for the most part are horrified that so many large issues have been swept under the carpet and not addressed.
I am not a specialist, but I live by the river and take a keen interest in its health and wellbeing as well as that of all home dwellers in the area.
Not enough attention has been paid to the deleterious effects on the bio-systems, the chalk streams , the predicted sea level rise in the next few decades and the harmful effects of very high CO2 emitting use of vast swathes of cement. All the foregoing will be substantially affected by such a large and ill- considered building programme. There is already overuse of natural water sources for the proposed growth in the county and plans to supplement this appear to ignore a similar case in Lincolnshire which has not enough spare water of its own to be called upon to pump a supplementary supply to our area..
All these concerns are deeply concerning and have not had adequate representation in your consultation process. Please halt all decision making in the light of COP26 and its urgent finding and review the plan in order to secure a safe and clean and unpolluted environment so future generations can thrive here.

The Cambridge Labour Party Environment Forum (CLEF) wishes to make a response to the Local Plan 1st Proposals document, but finds all the offered response formats inadequate. The consultation makes too many assumptions and demands a formulaic response to what is a complex and interconnected series of issues. CLEF is committed to addressing the global climate and biodiversity emergencies, and the local/regional water emergency, while addressing social and environmental
inequality and protecting people’s rights. These rights include, but are not limited to:
genuinely affordable homes; access to fairly remunerated, meaningful work; good
health and wellbeing, which requires clean air and water and access to green spaces;
and safe communities. These rights are not equally distributed across the city and
surrounding region and any local plan should be designed to address, rather than
exacerbate this.
The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) itself stresses the importance of achieving sustainable development through acknowledging the interdependence of economic, social and environmental dimensions. Our understanding is that economic drivers are far outweighing social and environmental dimensions in this 1st proposal of the local plan, thereby unbalancing these three elements so that they cannot be mutually supportive. The NPPF states that mitigation of climate change is achieved by making effective use of land in urban areas (this is not prioritized in the
local plan). Protecting areas and assets of particular importance (which we argue includes green belt land surrounding Cambridge, and the Cam chalk river system)
‘provides a strong reason for restricting overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area (our emphasis, NPPF, Sustainable Development 11b).
We start from the premise that the climate emergency we face is an existential threat globally and in the East Anglian region. This has become very clear this year
and the UK has declared its intention to submit a plan to COP27 in 2022 to stay within 1.5oC of warming compared with pre-industrial levels (on current
commitments the rate of global heating is 2.4oC, so clearly drastic measures are needed). Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Commission on Climate
reports that the region’s carbon emissions are already 25% higher per person than the national average and that we have less than 6 years left of our carbon budget to
2050, which should put a severe brake on further development. As a consequence, we should be reducing our carbon footprint faster and by more than the average per person rate. Instead Cambridge City Council and South Cambs District Council are
proposing above national rates of house building. New building and infrastructure is carbon intensive, with embodied CO2 accounting for 28% of its CO2 emissions over the first 50 years’ lifetime of a new house (Empty Homes Agency, 2008). Cement and steel – essential ingredients of buildings and infrastructure - contribute 16% to global CO2 emissions. Development on the scale proposed in the area is unsustainable, and
is therefore potentially open to legal challenge.
As well as challenging the argument for growth in a climate challenged region – and world - we also question its impact on biodiversity and the natural environment,
water/rivers, energy demand, and social and economic well-being for the most disadvantaged, as the following sections detail.