The city of Cambridge

The Cambridge urban area needs to be sympathetically developed completely before considering going into greenfield sites in South Cambridgeshire.

Apart from new settlements, the Cambridge urban area is the other main area in which new homes should be targeted. This appears to (broadly) be the approach followed by the First Proposals, which is commendable.

(Transport) Section 2.2 - the term unnecessary private car use is very subjective would recommend something with a clearer definition is used.
Link to Cambourne and East West Rail need to maximum the benefits. Consider setting our policy specific to EWR with the LPA’s vision, objectives, and requirements (e.g. for stations, connectivity etc) should this project come forward.
Welcome engagement with Network Rail to ensure that Cambridge South station maximises use of Active Travel and that provision of drop off and collection points are suitable, and do not cause a negative impact on the surrounding area.

Whilst it is recognised that locating development within the Cambridge urban area is a sustainable development option, it is considered that too much emphasis is placed on this as a location within the emerging Local Plan. This focus of providing larger sites in this location could lead to problems associated with infrastructure provision and housing delivery. There needs to be a better balance with more housing being apportioned to the rural area. Without a redistribution of housing this would lead to an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of mixed and balanced communities. This could lead to a trend of the vitality and long-term future of rural communities being threatened. In addition to this there is more of a focus on home working since the COVID19 pandemic and less reliance on needing to be close to larger cities; so there is not as much requirement or desire for housing to be located in city based urban locations.

Whilst it is recognised that locating development within the Cambridge urban area is a sustainable development option, it is considered that too much emphasis is placed on this as a location within the emerging Local Plan. This focus of providing larger sites in this location could lead to problems associated with infrastructure provision and housing delivery. There needs to be a better balance with more housing being apportioned to the rural area. Without a redistribution of housing this would lead to an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of mixed and balanced communities. This could lead to a trend of the vitality and long-term future of rural communities being threatened. In addition to this there is more of a focus on home working since the COVID19 pandemic and less reliance on needing to be close to larger cities; so there is not as much requirement or desire for housing to be located in city based urban locations.

Huntingdonshire District Council agree that Greater Cambridge should look towards Cambridge to create new neighbourhoods on larger brownfield sites such as North East Cambridge. As the economic hub of the authorities, the impact of commuting within the area and in the surrounding districts is substantial. This strategy will enable the Councils to work towards their vision to create a “big decrease in climate impacts” and minimising carbon emissions and reliance on the private car. This will also have a positive impact on the surrounding districts.

The housing development at North East Cambridge is not supported, a focus on employment growth in the area and improved sustainable public transport from within Cambridge City, Greater Cambridge and the wider region is recommended.
Consideration of the impact of existing/committed housing growth in the urban area should inform the policy guidance established for Areas of Major Change.

Some Private Car use will remain necessary. The Plan continues the confusion between car ownership and car usage. {This is applicable to the whole area not just the Cambridge urban area} In the Local Plan area there is a very high proportion of “immigrants” in planning terms. That is people that have moved into the Cambridge sub area from elsewhere including the rest of Great Britain. Many of the areas left are difficult to access by public transport from here, and with friends and family to be visited, a car for these weekend trips (or even to dash to assist elderly relatives at unsociable hours) means many will need to maintain their own car. In addition many trades (necessary in proportion to support those, for instance, working within the high tech businesses) require a vehicle for tools and equipment. Not providing sufficient convenient and secure parking for these vehicles will lead to blockages on roads (stopping emergency vehicle access) and parking on kerbs strongly inconveniencing those with restricted mobility or vision. Car usage on the other hand can be discouraged positively by good public transport links and walking cycling opportunities, the ability to work locally to ones residence (but this might be limited in effect with two workers from the same accommodation), and homes built with facilities for home working, and negatively by road pricing, reducing parking provision at places of work and reduced priority for private cars on the local roads.

Also, Trades people and delivery vehicles will need to visit areas with insufficient parking. How can I get my weekly groceries if I can't park nearby and a delivery vehicle can't deliver? How will my washing machine be repaired or a new one delivered?

The Plan needs to recognise the different aspects of car usage and car ownership.

Cambridge urban area - general comments I support the following statements ‘This means providing opportunities to regenerate areas that aren’t yet reaching their potential'. ALSO ‘development must also be carefully designed to respect the historic character of the city.’ as most important guiding principles for selecting areas for sustainable development

We generally and broadly in agreement with these proposals

It is essential to consider transportation issues in Cambridge. My wife is now very disabled and is confined to a very large wheelchair which is not easy to wheel for large distances (it is too heavy and also many of the pavements are in a poor state of repair). The only way that she can leave the house to go anywhere is in a purpose-adapted vehicle. Hence, the needs of her and other similarly disabled individuals must be catered for with ready access (and parking) in the Cambridge City centre.

Map Fig 14: shows the Policies being proposed in the Cambridge Urban Area, including North East Cambridge (Policy S/NEC).
As outlined within proposed Policy S/NEC, the corresponding Waste Water Treatment Works relocation is being led by Anglian Water under a separate process.
However, map Fig 14 should also display for reference the proposed relocation site for the Waste Water Treatment Works to provide proper context for the S/NEC Policy in terms of future land use and corresponding Green Belt cost.

Map Fig 14: shows the Policies being proposed in the Cambridge Urban Area, including North East Cambridge (Policy S/NEC).
As outlined within proposed Policy S/NEC, the corresponding Waste Water Treatment Works relocation is being led by Anglian Water under a separate process.
However, map Fig 14 should also display for reference the proposed relocation site for the Waste Water Treatment Works to provide proper context for the S/NEC Policy in terms of future land use and corresponding Green Belt cost.

CambridgePPF is concerned about the capacity of the Cambridge Urban area to accommodate the scale of proposed growth, an additional 73,000 people. We are particularly concerned about the inadequate space in the historic city streets and city centre public realm to cater for existing people movement (vehicular, cyclists, pedestrians) – and the ability of the complex local government system to deliver effective solutions (City Council, Cambs County Council, C&P Combined Authority, Greater Cambridge Partnership). The 2018 Local Plan included a requirement for an SPD to address this problem but at the start of 2022 limited progress has been achieved.

We support the ambition for the historic core of Cambridge to be protected and enhanced by appropriate new development of the highest design quality, and for the regeneration of parts of the city that aren’t fulfilling their potential.

We agree that Cambridge should be a place where walking, cycling and public transport is the natural choice and where unnecessary private car use is discouraged to help achieve net zero carbon.

In the second paragraph, it should refer to "This means regenerating or enhancing parts of the city that aren’t fulfilling their potential," not just "This means regenerating parts of the city that aren’t fulfilling their potential,"

General support

GBI considers that there is an over-reliance on proposed development in the Cambridge urban area and to the north, east to support the housing needs arising from the distribution of employment to the south of the City.

Great Shelford Parish Council (GSPC) members have noted the comments in this section but wish to reiterate their comments noted above in the section ‘Vision and Development Strategy’ as they apply to this area too.
GSPC has considerable concerns that all the transport projects currently being considered are being led by separate bodies and do not appear to be coordinated, meaning this area could be flawed. All these areas should be integrated under one plan led by one representative, strategic, democratically accountable authority.
We are particularly concerned that many transport infrastructure projects, such as CSET and East West Rail, are designed to benefit Cambridge City alone, to the detriment of the surrounding villages such as Great Shelford.

Any new site-specific allocations for this area must confirm the need to undertake an appropriate assessment of existing health infrastructure capacity, and require any applicant/developer to fully mitigate the impact of any proposals through appropriate planning obligations – and early engagement with the NHS on the form of infrastructure required.

The site-specific allocations should set out principles for delivering improvements to general health and wellbeing, and promote healthy and green lifestyle choices through well-designed places.

It is essential that all development is synchronised with the relevant infrastructure.

We remain unconvinced that realistic traffic modelling has been used. Roads of concern - Newmarket Road / Coldhams Lane, main roads into city which already struggle with high volumes and are gridlocked every weekend and rush hour. Coldhams Lane, south of the airport, is a particular concern as parts are very narrow with a small footpath and no cycle path. Marleigh, land north of Cherry Hinton and Marshalls developments will have big impact to these roads and volume of traffic regardless of the optimistic wish to minimise private car use.
There is a huge challenge to get a balance with wildlife / people in the urban environment - new
developments may offer a green space with a park but how many households have gardens? More gardens are better for more wildlife. We understand that grassland has decreased from 30% in 1930s to less than 10% in 2018, this is a massive loss and has a negative impact on the environment and quality of life / mental health benefits. We are concerned about flooding as a result of the loss of soakaway green areas city wide.
On the positive side it is good to see there are proposals making use of a number of "brown field" sites within Cambridge for development (as this could well reduce pressure on rural areas like ours), however we would question the benefits of some of the sites, such as retail parks (for example suggesting developing the Beehive centre and the retail park opposite, where Homebase/Currys/Argos are) and the football ground (which of course has been proposed before), for potential development as they would have a detrimental effect on the local facilities and may well result in more rural development (if the retail outlets look for new sites).
Also, very little regard is given to the traffic issues more housing will produce, it seems to assume that somehow magically people who move into these developments will not have cars and will all walk or use bikes/public transport. There is policy promising there better public transport will be provided but, especially for the Newmarket road/Coldham's Lane sites identified, the roads are already at capacity and things like adding bus lanes will make congestion worse if people do continue to use cars.
There is also a proposal for an industrial development on Land South of Coldham's Lane (effectively expanding the Norman Way industrial estate). Again our worry here would be supporting infrastructure, especially as industry will only make limited use of public transport and instead adds lorries etc. to the roads. Alternatively this could be a new retail park (if areas such as the Beehive are redeveloped) which would again increase not decrease car use in the area.
Finally, the plan mentions the brownfield housing developments will be enforced to "create character", but does not really say how - if building and street designs that have "character" all well and good, but we suspect in practice we would end up with blocks of flats like the ones on Marleigh which do not really match the surrounding area.

Shepreth Parish Council (SPC) generally supports the development of sustainable brownfield sites in and around NE Cambridge, believing these will have the necessary infrastructure and a lower carbon footprint.

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.

Support any potential for change of use of existing buildings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision and development strategy
Vision and aims
THE VISION
The vision is contradictory, misconceived and undemocratic, unquestioning, unachievable, and based on inadequate evidence. The draft Plan and this whole consultation are premature.

It is contradictory in that the vision of a big decrease in climate impacts is totally undermined by blindness to fundamental incompatibilities between growth and carbon reduction. Its claims of sustainability and Net Zero are not credible given that the carbon costs of construction are not included in the Plan’s definition of a Net Zero Carbon building.

It is misconceived and undemocratic in that it claims to want “the variety of homes and jobs we need” when all the proposed options involve levels of growth dictated by a combination of Government fiat (through both imposed housing targets and four growth corridors led by the Ox Cam Arc) and the ambitions of a local oligarchy (exemplified by Cambridge Ahead) which is unrepresentative of the people of Greater Cambridge. The Arc proposals are in direct conflict with the “levelling up” agenda, will not deliver “levelling up” in terms of Cambridge’s inequalities (notably affordable housing) and should not be taken as justification for the level of growth being proposed (https://smartgrowthuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The_Overheated_Arc_Part_3_September_2021.pdf).

The Plan’s “predict and provide” approach fails to even question the desirability or deliverability of this imposed growth. Nor does it begin to tackle the severe challenges arising from past and present growth, notably in terms of affordability (in the most unequal city in England), and transport capacity issues (first identified by Holford 70 years ago), both of which have been exacerbated by growth, and will be further exacerbated, not diminished, by the growth now proposed.

It is unachievable in that
a) it ignores environmental capacity limits, most immediately in relation to water issues, but also in relation to the physical character of Greater Cambridge, and the capacity challenges of accommodating the intense activity of a 21st century city within the built fabric and spaces of a historic University town and its hinterland.
b) its claims to increase nature, wildlife and green spaces rely on a quantum of development that, considered holistically, will have an opposite effect.
c) the Plan’s growth proposals will compound the damaging impacts of current growth on our unique heritage and landscapes.

Its evidence base is incomplete and inadequate. Inexcusably, it has no assessment whatever of environmental capacity (a fundamental issue for the Plan) other than in relation to water supply. The Climate change evidence is inadequate and misleading, notably because it uses a definition of Net Zero Building which omits the embodied carbon of construction. There is no review or assessment of the success or failure of current local plan or other policies. This is compounded by the woefully inadequate historic environment evidence base, which has no strategic consideration of Cambridge as a world famous historic city, and is so incomplete that it only mentions one Conservation Area Appraisal (the Historic Core) when all the city’s Conservation Areas are covered by Appraisals, and fails to use the readily available evidence contained within them.
The draft Plan and the whole consultation are premature pending
1) A thorough understanding and appreciation of the current character of Greater Cambridge and its environmental capacity
2) The forthcoming Water Resources East consultation on the Regional Water Plan, on which these proposals depend
3) Transport solutions which can be accommodated in the space available, including those currently and imminently out for consultation on transport capacity and links within and outside the city.

THE AIMS
The Plan’s aims do not include what is arguably the most vital: how to maintain, enhance, and provide more equitable access to what makes Cambridge special, in the face of the combined challenges of growth and Climate Change. This should be a key priority of the Historic Environment Strategy which is required by the NPPF, but absent from the First Proposals.

As someone from the Tech industry said in a meeting last year with Stephen Kelly, Director of Planning: “Malta has concrete high rises, no one goes there. The Tech sector comes here because it’s a nice place to be. If Cambridge takes a predict and provide approach, it will accelerate into catastrophe.”

How much development, and where – general comments
No more development allocations until issues arising from existing approved growth have been identified and tackled. This means waiting for the Regional Water Plan and coherent publicly-endorsed proposals for tackling existing congestion and capacity issues, challenging the assumptions underlying the Ox Cam Arc, and carrying out a holistic assessment of environmental capacity and the limits to growth. All in line with the principles of Doughnut Economics which the City Council says that it has adopted.

The evidence base is seriously inadequate in relation to environmental capacity. There is no evaluation of the success or failure of existing policies in maintaining the special character of Cambridge, an aim which the new Plan seeks to maintain. Such consideration needs to include not only impacts of the form, scale and location of new development, but also of the transport and other infrastructure required by it. Current growth is putting massive, and unresolved pressures on the capacity of existing transport links, and the physical capacity of Cambridge’s roads system and public realm.

The GCP’s Making Connections proposals, currently under consultation, attempt to resolve some of the challenges, but have no detailed assessment of the capacity of Cambridge’s streets to take the extra volumes of bus and cycle traffic being proposed. Given that Cambridge’s congestion problems are historic, and compounded by growth, this consultation on Local Plan proposals for additional growth is premature in the absence of credible and detailed proposals to tackle current capacity issues.
S/DS: Development strategy
How can the proposals aim for net zero with this sheer volume of proposed development (while whole-life costing of large new proposals is welcome, what about the carbon cost of developments in the pipeline? - see above and comments on CC/NZ below).
No mention of impacts of transport links required for these proposals. Need to ensure that these are brought forward in concurrently with the Local Plan proposals.
Cambridge urban area
Cambridge urban area - general comments

Massive environmental capacity issues, with inadequate space in City streets and public realm to cater for existing traffic, let alone approved growth already in the pipeline – even before considering these First Proposals. The capacity issues have to be tackled, with additional growth allowed only if they can be resolved.

No mention of Covid and opportunities for city centre residential / other uses resulting from potential radical changes in retail.
No new cultural or provision for other “city-scale” needs, so putting the city centre under even greater pressure.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Vividly illustrates the issues. Gross over development.
Edge of Cambridge
Edge of Cambridge - general comments
The Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

This highlights a vital flaw of the Plan, its failure to take a holistic view of the combination of different elements (including historic and natural environment) which make up the character of Greater Cambridge. The Government may have tried to artificially separate the natural and built environment with its Environment Act, but that doesn’t mean this approach should be followed in Cambridge!

Climate change
Climate change - general comments

The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Already out of date in terms of Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice.
Support regular reviews to keep pace with developing technology, standards, Government targets (e.g. the Heat and Buildings Strategy, not mentioned in the draft Plan), and rapidly developing guidance and best practice. There are also serious quality control challenges in relation to whether aspirational aims are actually delivered. How will this be done? Outline planning permissions must be subject to the aspirations articulated in draft local plan. How will this be done?
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” (sic) and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)
Agree that development should be located so that low carbon transport links can be accessed. However, such locations should not be chosen based on proposed busways – the delivery of these is uncertain and their construction generates carbon emissions through the embodied carbon in the building materials, tree felling reducing carbon capture, maintenance and serving works, and lighting, contrary to the Council’s net zero carbon agenda.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
The definition of a Net Zero Carbon building set out in the Evidence Base does not include its embodied carbon: this is a very serious omission which undermines all claims made about the sustainability of new development, and raises questions about the claimed sustainability credentials of all the Growth options being proposed.

Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

CC/CE: Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy
Support recognition of embodied carbon, also whole life carbon (see CC/CE). build for future re-use, including requiring use of lime mortar not cement to enable re-use of fired and quarried materials.

Where possible, existing buildings should be re-used (“The greenest building is the one that already exists”– Carl Elefante https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists quoted in the Architect’s Journal Retrofirst campaign https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/join-our-retrofirst-campaign-to-make-retrofit-the-default-choice)

Require whole-life assessments whenever demolition of an existing building is proposed. (e.g. false net zero claims made for new Kings College development on Barton Rd – no mention of the embodied carbon of the buildings demolished to make way; same applies to the Flying Pig replacement) .

Incredibly, no mention of retrofit in the Climate Change topic paper! The Council’s apparent view that retrofit is not within the scope of the Plan is mistaken. The only place in which retrofit is mentioned, and far too narrowly, is in policy GP/CC in the Great Places paper. This is one of several instances where a holistic approach should require read-across between Policies in different sections (e.g. also between historic environment and natural environment).

Retrofit will be within the direct scope of the Plan (guiding planning decisions) whenever it involves works which could potentially require planning permission or listed building consent.
[Case in point is the new Institute for Sustainability Leadership building (conversion of former telephone exchange) on Regent St. Major impact on appearance of building which makes (or made) a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, not a heritage asset but requiring planning permission. The submitted justification included every possible assessment criterion apart from townscape / heritage impact (shockingly not even considered by the applicants!). What has been approved and is now being built involved losing the window detailing which was a key part of the building’s character. Since that scheme was approved, PAS 2038 (non-domestic retrofit guidance) has come into force: it would have required a more comprehensive approach by the applicants, and might have led to a different decision. ]

Retrofit is also within the scope of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, which needs to be updated to include embodied carbon, over the whole life cycle of construction (including retrofit and refurbishment), as set out in British Standard BS EN 15978:2011:
SEE ATTACHED
(slide by Alice Moncaster)

This Climate Change section should include specific policies covering retrofit, which will feature ever more strongly as Govt targets for Band C etc bite. These targets present serious challenges now, and will get ever more serious during the Plan period, with high risks of carbon (and money) being wasted on inappropriate works. Yet Net Zero Carbon for existing buildings is mentioned only cursorily, on a single page (35) of the Local Plan’s Net Zero Carbon Evidence Base.

There is no mention whatsoever of the need for a different approach to buildings of traditional solid wall construction. These form at least a quarter of the existing stock; this proportion should have been considered and assessed as part of the Evidence Base. It could even be as high as 35%, the proportion quoted in the BRE study “Solid wall heat losses and the potential for energy saving” published by DECC in 2015.

The specific challenges of traditional buildings , and the risks of unforeseen consequences (and of consequent waste, rather than saving, of carbon and money) are highlighted in PAS2035, the Government’s guidance on domestic retrofit, which is referenced in Policy GP/CC. However the reference to PAS 2035 in the Policy is futile in its draft form because the PAS (although Government guidance) is not freely available, but published by the British Standards Institute, costing £190, and so is inaccessible to home owners and others who need the guidance.

The Climate Change section of the Plan should quote key principles and guidance* from PAS 2035 and its non-domestic counterpart PAS 2038 (and reference other freely available advice including from the STBA and IHBC as well as the Government’s own guidance to Private Sector Landlords) in sufficient detail to ensure that people dealing with ALL traditional buildings (not only heritage assets) have access to the appropriate advice and skills to ensure that their buildings are put in good repair, and then suitable retrofit measures are applied as appropriate. See https://stbauk.org/whole-house-approach/. This is essential to achieve the aims of the PASs and to minimise unintended consequences.
*including (e.g.) section 0.1.1 of PAS 2035:
SEE ATTACHED

Biodiversity and green spaces
Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Serious environmental capacity issues (see above), particularly in relation to intensification of pressures on green spaces..

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Projects proposed to help achieve net zero need to be both delivered and SAFEGUARDED, throughout the Plan period, to ensure that the aims are delivered (e,g, need to ensure that biodiversity / natural capital / “doubling nature” and any other such schemes are protected from subsequent inappropriate changes of use or management)

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Flawed in that green infrastructure and historic environment re considered separately (see comments on Edge of Cambridge, River corridors, and Protecting open spaces). A holistic approach is essential – see NPPF definition of the historic environment..

BG/RC: River corridors
The River Cam Corridor initiative does not mention the historic environment, historic environment designations, or conservation area appraisals. High risks of more intensive use. no mention of environmental capacity issues or recognition that there may be capacity limits to growth or access by either/both local people and visitors (impacts of punt operators on Cam, etc). No mention of historic environment designations. No consideration of areas under particular threat. No consideration of historic / characteristic uses and land management. The whole river corridor from Byron’s Pool to Baits Bite, and its historic uses are vital parts of the historic and cultural as well as landscape character of Cambridge and should be safeguarded. Grantchester Meadows, one of the key river corridor historic and cultural spaces, is the only vital section of the corridor currently without Conservation Area designation; it is currently threatened by visitor pressures and by possible removal of the grazing cattle which play a vital part in traditional water meadow management.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
No mention that many open spaces are historic, and form part of the historic environment (see NPPF definition of the historic environment) need to consider their significance as a whole, not just in terms of green infrastructure. Historic environment and local identity are vital elements of the wellbeing identified here

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Open space is not just green space - what about the market square, Quayside etc etc? Need to manage existing pressures, and avoid harmful intensification of use, on all open spaces, and ensure that new development does not increase these pressures. The river corridor is particularly vulnerable.


Wellbeing and inclusion
Wellbeing and inclusion - general comments
There are no documents in the Document Library to support this theme. Why not?

The Topic Paper highlights the importance of place and space, but its text is focused on new developments, and does not mention the contribution made to wellbeing by the beauty and special character of existing places, including the city of Cambridge, the towns and villages, and valued countryside. The historic environment is a vital part of wellbeing.

Nor is Covid mentioned, even though the pandemic has highlighted the vital importance of access to local green space, and to local fresh food. Small local producers have continued to provide when the supermarkets supply chains fail. Cambridge market, and the local producers who sell from it, continues to provide a lifeline of health and wellbeing for many people, as well as providing vital opportunities for business start-ups including makers as well as food sellers.

There is no assessment of existing cultural activities, of current demands for space, or of demands for new space arising from either existing approved growth or that now proposed. Nor is there any assessment of related opportunities in terms of under-used retail space post-Covid. This is a totally inadequate baseline for a credible Plan.

The forthcoming Cultural Infrastructure Strategy for Greater Cambridge will need to recognise Cambridge’s international cultural significance in terms of both its historic environment (which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage sites), and its past and present cultural activities. The Local Plan should include policies to protect this significance, and specifically to support cultural activities, and to provide for, and safeguard, public and private spaces for arts and other activities.

Great places policies
Great places – general comments

The Great Places paper refers to Heritage Assets, but completely fails to recognise that the city of Cambridge is a heritage asset of worldwide significance which meets UNESCO’s Outstanding Universal Value criteria for World Heritage status. This significance derives from the combination of its built and natural heritage. The draft Plan fails to recognise the vital role which this special character plays in making Cambridge a great place to live in, work, study, and visit.

The draft Plan also fails to recognise the historic relationships between Cambridge as a market town, its market, and its productive hinterland.

The draft Plan’s approach involves a false separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

Cambridge’s special character has been, and continues to be, under severe threats from the quantum of already approved growth (built developments and pressures on both streets and green spaces). There are severe environmental capacity issues in trying to accommodate the demands of a 21st century city within what remains the built fabric and spaces of a medieval market town. These fundamental conflicts between growth on the one hand and environmental capacity and special character on the other should have been recognised as a key challenge for the draft Local Plan. so why wasn’t the Historic Environment Baseline Study prioritised, and published as part of the Nov 2020 tranche?

But the draft Plan documents include no assessment of current pressures, let alone the impacts of the draft First Proposals.

Instead, para 3.2.4 of the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline makes a totally unevidenced statement that:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity".

Overall, the Evidence base for Great Places is inadequate, and the proposals are premature pending a thorough review of the success or failure of existing policies.


GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Over-intensification of use is a major threat to landscape character.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
I strongly support protection of the Green Belt, but the Green Belt assessment is not fit for purpose, because it ignores historic environment designations and landscape character constraints.

The Council appears to have forgotten that the Green Belt was set up to protect the setting of the historic University city.

GP/QP: Establishing high quality landscape and public realm
Serious issues of street capacity.

GP/HA: Conservation and enhancement of heritage assets
A vital issue given totally inadequate consideration and priority. The historic environment (not just heritage assets) is a vital part of Cambridge, not just in terms of Great Places, but also for Wellbeing, and for the city’s prosperity.

The historic environment, and its capacity (or not) to withstand existing growth (let alone new growth proposed) should have been considered at the start of the Great Places chapter. Understand what you have, then consider its capacity for change
Fails to consider anything other than designated heritage assets. No consideration of heritage significance of Cambridge as a whole, or of the heritage significance of undesignated buildings, spaces, and intangible heritage –notably Cambridge’s market, which pre-dates the University, and Grantchester meadows.
The Heritage Impact Assessment is not fit for purpose, and clearly written by consultants who have limited knowledge of Cambridge, and of issues, policies, and initiatives relating to its historic environment. There is no mention of any Conservation Area appraisal apart from the Historic Core, and no cumulative assessment of significance and issues identified in these Appraisals.
.
The “Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline” is woefully inadequate in both its scope and its approach:
a) In its scope, because it confines itself to stages 1 (identify the historic assets” and 2 (“define and analyse the settings”) of Historic England’s ”Settings of Heritage Assets: Good Practice Guide”, without considering the dynamic of the city as a whole, what has been happening in its recent years, or the potential impacts of currently approved growth. It is almost as if the Council asked for an updated version of the 1971 publication “Cambridge Townscape”, whilst completely disregarding the award-winning conservation plan approach of the 2006 Historic Core Appraisal which sought to understand not just the physical character of Cambridge but its dynamic, and threats and opportunities, as part of shaping policies.

b) while the document references the Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal, it does not even mention other Conservation Area Appraisals (ignoring the complete Appraisal coverage of the City's Conservation Areas) or issues and opportunities identified therein. Nor does it mention the Suburbs and Approaches Studies. It is all too clear that the consultants have taken only a superficial look at the baseline information.

c) I would have expected consultants preparing this “high level” document to consider the historic environment, and the extent of designations, strategically (a great opportunity for this combined Plan) - but the document does not even consider the extent to which Cambridge’s historic and cultural landscape (including the river corridor from Byron’s pool to Baits Bite Lock) is or is not protected.

d) The study completely fails to assess the significance of Cambridge as a whole. Dennis Rodwell’s “Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities” puts Cambridge on a similar level of international significance to Venice.

e) For the options involving development in and adjacent to Cambridge, it seems to assume that most problems can be resolved by Design, completely ignoring environmental capacity issues. At a most immediate level, what if any detailed assessment has been made of the wider visual impacts of tall buildings on the North-East Cambridge site?

There are fundamental environmental capacity issues in terms of pressures on the character and spaces of the historic core and surrounding landscape, due to not only the additional volumes of development, people and traffic being generated by the proposed additional growth, but all of these arising from existing approved growth plus the transport links required to enable it.

There is no assessment whatever of the cumulative impacts on landscape, townscape and environmental capacity of all the GCP and other proposals including busways, City Access, Greenways, Active Travel schemes etc.

A third-party, holistic overview is essential to identify and try to resolve some of these key strategic issues and balances, and consider to what extent further growth is viable. In relation to heritage, growth is seriously threatening what makes Cambridge Special. I suggest that Historic England’s Historic Places Panel are invited to visit Cambridge and provide strategic recommendations which can inform the Local Plan.

The flaws in the current approach are exemplified by a claim in the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment: baseline:
“3.2.4 Future growth in Cambridge has the potential to strengthen and reinforce these characteristics, enabling the City to meet contemporary environmental, economic and social drivers without undermining its economic identity"
This statement can only be described as unevidenced, shockingly ignorant and ludicrously complacent.
Moving from strategic issues to safeguarding individual heritage assets and their settings, there are serious questions in relation to the effectiveness of existing policies which are proposed to be carried forward.

A case in point is the former Mill Road Library a grade II listed building of high public significance, which was recognised to be “at risk” but ignored by both the City and County Councils during the development and approval of the City’s Depot site redevelopment. This was a massive opportunity which would not have been missed had the City complied with its own Local Plan policy regarding heritage assets. While the County has belatedly refurbished the former Library, it has not been integrated as a public building within the new development. It appears that the County may now be offering this public building, built for the public, for private sale!

GP/CC: Adapting heritage assets to climate change
This policy is basically very good -but should relate to all buildings of traditional construction, and needs some updating. Needs direct read-across to CC/NZ. See my comments on CC/NZ.
Supporting documents on which we are consulting
Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment)

The Sustainability Appraisal fails to tackle the key environmental capacity issues arising from existing growth, let alone that now proposed.

The whole definition of “Sustainable Development” is too narrow given that since 2010 the UN has included Culture as the 4th pillar of Sustainable Development - and Cambridge's historic environment is a cultural asset of worldwide significance.

Within the current UK sustainability assessment process (dating from 2004 and excluding culture), there is a separation between Landscape and Townscape (Objective 6) and Historic Environment (Objective 7), which for Cambridge has resulted in inadequate consideration and valuation of the historic city in its historic landscape setting, with historic landscape and open spaces considered as green infrastructure but not as historic environment.

Cambridge urban area - general comments:
Our city has massive environmental capacity issues, with inadequate space in the 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 considered only if they can be resolved.
We agree that “development must also be carefully designed to respect the historic character of the city” but are concerned that this aspiration does not appear to be backed up by detailed plans or evidence. For example, the analysis of Green Belt areas and their characteristics does not include historic environment designations (even though the Green Belt was set up to protect the setting of the historic University city). The claim in the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment that “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" is not supported by evidence.