Although I suport many aspects of the plan I object to the lack of clarity about parking near Skaters' Meadow in the area referred to in the plan as the 'Skaters' Meadow footpath'. This area is a de facto car park which is valued by dog walkers, swimmers, people with disabilities, and many others who are not lucky enough to live in Newnham. The plan for South Newnham should include details about how space for car parking is to be provided alongside the plans to enhance biodiversity around the car park..

While many overall aims in the neighbourhood plan are generally positive, there are a number of items in the plan which do not balance the preferences of the local community with the needs of the wider Cambridge community.
Some examples:
1. Designating Skaters’ Meadow Footpath as a local green space LGS2 is a not very well veiled attempt to limit access for cars and possibly bicycles to this area. It is merely a path with very small green verges and no real vegetation of special interest. If the informal car park at the end of the path is to be closed, this needs to happen via proper consultation with wider Cambridge and not through the back door of designating a path as a green space.
2. Blank refusal of widening of paths as per SNCA2 – Pedestrian & Cycle Paths is contrary to attempts to improve active travel provision in the Cambridge area.
3. SNNP5 – Protecting and Maintaining the Connectivity Network: opposing changes to Barton Road Cycle Path if they "harm existing landscape features" could make any meaningful improvement to the cycle path virtually impossible.

A truly wonderful achievement - so much dedicated hard work - congratulations to all concerned. I trust it will act to inspire all residents to appreciate what we have in S Newnham and to conserve and enhance its beauty.

1. Protection of excessive development/construction legalises more NIMBY behaviour. e.g. (7.7.12)
2. Lacks allocated sites for development for housing and employment despite this being a key element of such plans. Strong recommendation to make the plan easier for housing developers and builders, e.g. 'checklists'. More positive approach to development needed given housing demand. Current plan would nearly block ANY development or would make it unsustainable financially. Lots of 'no this no that, but yes bird boxes'. How about you make it clear where and how new large developments will be approved?
3. Biodiversity plans and street view plans are excessive. Reduce to far more reasonable level, or face being continuously whistled back by inspectorate.
4. Old people provisions are very extensive. Perhaps include younger people as authors to include these too?
5. Plan lacks conciseness and could be cut in length by 20-30% without affecting content.
6. Support for environmental green targets + overall goal of conservation targets, the latter should not block development however.
7. Make 7.7.9 far more concise. Seriously, chimney regulations?! Get a grip.
8. 7.4.2. - resisting the change of shops? Who do you all think you are? The shop owner decides on this, nobody else.

This is a great plan which should help to ensure that development preserves the beauty, greenery, and character of South Newnham.

This is a great document displaying the cultural and historical importance of the neighbourhood as well as being a green corridor and nature reserve. I strongly support this plan, it is clearly well researched and completely agrees with the tone and ethos of Newnham and its residents.

I write in support of the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

From the very first gathering of local people to discuss what they liked about living here, there has been enthusiasm to support our environment and protect it for the future. The process has been comprehensive and all residents and business and property-owners were invited and welcomed to the various well-publicised events.

The process has been a lengthy one, inevitable perhaps for something so complex, and the pandemic put a large dent in the progress that had been being made.

It is a very impressive document and as I read it I feel that it does reflect the views that people expressed very early on and throughout the process, at a detailed level and I think it is coherent and will be useful. Some residents may be unfamiliar with it since it had its start some years ago now, but if they read it I hope that they can enthusiastically support it, as I do.

I object to the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan. Some of the Plan's most likely authors have an undeclared conflict of interest, between their roles in South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum, and their roles within the Green Party. As a result, it is not clear whether the Plan has been created to serve the interests of local residents, or to promote the interests of the Green Party.

In more detail, the Plan has been produced by the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum (www.newnhamforum.co.uk). The Forum is run by a Management Committee, which currently has two officers in named roles, and until recently had three. All three have close links with the Green Party:

- Hugh Clough (Treasurer) was elected as a Green Party councillor in May 2024.
- Jean Bevan (Chair) gave public support to Mr Clough in a Green Party election leaflet in April 2024.
- Jean Glasberg (listed until recently as Vice-Chair) was elected as a Green Party councillor in May 2023.

Those individuals should have declared their interests in the Green Party as part of the submission, and should have declared their contributions to the research and production of the Plan. Their failure to do so is an undeclared conflict of interest, which compromises the entire credibility of the Plan.

Comprehensive submission and fully support the policies. Consultation Statement Page 39 – Comment 13 - C City C comment to use the word “Shall” rather than “Should” in policies and text. Applied in Policy 1 but should it have also been used in SNNP2, SNNP3, SNNP9 & SNNP11? LGS6 indicted on Map 2 but not referenced in key, Map 4 - LC and R13 missing. Map 5, BL13 on map should be BL12. See Consultation comments R2 and 54 - agreed to include the paddling pool on Lammas Land but has not been included in Map 4 of the NP.

We have lived in Newnham for > 40 years and have been involved in the preparation of this plan at various stages. It provides a very sensible perspective on how Newnham should develop in the coming decades and we strongly support it

I would like to add to my previous comments.

The green spaces in Newnham, particularly the green corridor along the Cam but also the various college playing fields, are particularly important to this area. The Evidence Base is particularly good in describing these assets, which are important not just for Newnham but for the whole of Cambridge. Similarly the various water areas, such as the Cam and Bolton's Pit (the lake between Fulbrooke Road and Barton Road) are really important.

The green verges and trees along Barton Road in particular need special protection, as they are continually under threat, in particular from the GCP - and again this is well described in the Evidence Base.

While I was not one of the 35 or so people who prepared the Evidence Base, I do think that it is a spectacularly thorough and accurate description of the area covered by the proposed neighbourhood plan.

In view of the above I particularly support SNNP 1-4.

On policy SNNP6 on community assets:

I particularly value assets R2, R3, R5, R7, and R10, which lie at the heart of the community here - and I know are also valued by countless others. I therefore fully support both parts of SNNP6.

On SNNP 7 re facilities for older people:

My own mother-in-law was very well accommodated in Lammas Court, and as we have many ageing residents in Newnham I think it is particularly important that its present use is retained.

On SNNP 9 on energy and water efficiency:

I fully agree with the proposals for energy efficiency of new buildings, and that measures that reduce heat wastage in winter or excessive solar gain in summer are very important. I also believe (having ourselves installed a heat pump some years ago) that the energy savings they achieve need to become more widespread. However, while I support measures to reduce water wastage, I do not support arbitrary caps on water consumption, and believe that instead water shortages in our area should be handled by *not* building more homes in Cambridge or expanding businesses here.

On SNNP 10 about climate change and associated flood risk:

This is definitely needed; there are several properties in Newnham, particularly those in the vicinity of Bin Brook, which are already being flooded more than once per decade and have associated high insurance costs and imposed mitigation measures. It would be awful if more paving and reduced greenspace led to this problem being exacerbated.

On SNNP 11 and 12:

Newnham is an expensive area, and people who buy property here often feel that they ought to have been able to buy more with their money than they have actually got - and then want to massively extend their property in a way that totally alters the street scene or overwhelms or overshadows their neighbours. It is great that these two policies will act against this.

The plan puts excessive focus on preserving the existing built environment. It discourages any development, which (if carefully managed) can help increase the population density of South Newnham and improve the environmental sustainability of the area. We face the luxury here of the challenges of managing growth, one of these is a lack of housing in the area for our children, another is pressure on the natural environment. We should encourage responsible development to increase population density, the quality and carbon footprint of the houses, and an infrastructure which better manages our interaction with the natural environment.

This plan marks a huge investment in time and effort and there is nothing that I disagree with. I particularly like the plans to protect and enhance biodiversity and open spaces. Any development which would intrude on the boundaries of the area or restrict the views from the periphery. should be prevented. Skaters' Meadows Footpath comes into this category. It should be a green transition to open fields, not a rutted car park hosting camper vans from across Europe but rather an area where cycles, disability vehicles and buggies are safe and biodiversity enhanced by trees and wildflowers.

I have lived in Newnham for many years and am concerned at the impact that University Colleges are having on the South Newnham area.
I think the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan is a well-prepared and excellent plan and I support it fully.

As a Newnham resident, I feel a neighbourhood plan might be beneficial to our area, but that this one could do significantly more for equality, diversity and inclusion and to give homeowners the confidence that they will be able to make the improvements needed to their properties to achieve net zero, water efficiency and other environmental sustainability goals. I didn't want to object, but the binary choice in your system doesn't allow for the nuance of wanting to change the plan, yet also respecting the hard work of many local residents, including my neighbour.

This submission sets out how I think the plan should be reviewed and/or changed to better achieve the South Neighbourhood Forum’s vision of ‘…supporting the transition to a low, and ultimately zero carbon society and making South Newnham a great place to live both now and for future generations’ and achieving environmental and social sustainability.
I would recommend that the Shared Planning Service conducts an Equality Impact Assessment on the draft neighbourhood plan. The draft supports older people very well, but could perform netter on disability, gender, meeting the needs of middle aged and younger people as well as future generations and social inclusion (noting the latter is not a protected characteristic).

The rest of this note sets out my views on specific parts of the plan.
SNNP3- light pollution. Lighting policy should balance the conservation considerations in the draft neighbourhood plan with other considerations, in particular the use of lighting to ensure people, particularly women, feel safe returning home after dark. As a local resident, I can find it quite frightening cycling across Lammas Land in the dark, yet this is a vital traffic free route for pedestrians and cyclists in our area. It is important that these human needs are also acknowledged in the planning policy. If silence on them means they are not fully considered, it could be sex discrimination and possibly discrimination against younger people.
I suggest the policy wording of the first sentence in 7.1.8 be changed to:
‘To protect wildlife and especially bats, proposals for additional lighting both within and adjacent to the Green Infrastructure Network will be supported only if it is necessary, for example to ensure safety after dark and capable of minimising harm to the natural environment’ (my suggested changes in bold). There may be situations where harm to aspects of the natural environment cannot be avoided without compromising human, particularly women's, safety. Policy on solar studs should allow the possibility that some foot and cycle paths may require better lighting to ensure pedestrian and cycle safety, for example next to open water courses or in dark areas.
I disagree with SNCA 2 and SNCA 3 under point 7.1.10 ‘Community Actions’ on page 36. SNCA 2 should instead balance the considerations involved in questions of whether to widen food and cycle paths. These should include:
• Accessibility (for example for mobility scooters, buggies, cargo bikes, trailers and adapted cycles).
• Safety and ability to travel and a reasonable pace through minimising conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians (and where possible this should be achieved without cyclists needing to slow down to a pedestrian speed of 2-5km per hour to avoid accidents).
• Sustainable urban drainage (as grass/ planting areas can play a role here)
• Biodiversity, noting that this can be thought of using a broader area.
SNCA 3 should add that signage should help pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to navigate effectively, particularly those who do not know the area. They should also be consistent with Newnham’s role as a thriving part of a thriving city – ‘semi rural’ feels like a 1950s throwback.
SNNP4 – I strongly agree with other local residents, who have argued for the removal of SNCA 2, the car parking area next to Skaters’ Meadow from the list of local green spaces. Designating this area as a local green space risks removing access to Grantchester Meadows for older people, disabled people and those with young families who do not live locally and may need to travel by car. Grantchester Meadows is a very significant recreational area, enjoyed by people around Cambridge and well beyond. Like other significant sites listed in the Neighbourhood Plan (eg. Paradise Nature reserve), we Newnham residents should not be greedy, but ensure our fellow Cambridge residents can make use of these amenities.
SNNP5 on cycling and walking could be more ambitious, particularly for cycling. It should add that proposals impacting the cycle network should maintain or improve cycle connectivity, including for non-standard cycles such as box bikes, trailers, cargo bikes, tricycles and adapted cycles such as hand cycles. The policy on the Barton Rd cycle path (bottom of p.39) should be modified, by replacing verges with hedges as protected landscape features. Trees and hedges are slow growing aspects of our green infrastructure, whilst verges and plantings can easily be regrown in other locations, so trees and hedges should have a higher bar for removal with infrastructure projects. It also needs to add a consideration that would enable planners to meet the needs of cyclists in the broader network, for example coming from barton using a range of different kinds of cycles. This policy should also do more to enable improvement of bus services, given that younger and older people tend to need and use them more.
SNNP7: whilst retention of sheltered housing for older people is important and welcome, this policy needs the addition of social housing. Lack of social and affordable housing is a city-wide problem.
SNNP9 this policy on energy efficiency is welcome, particularly in the light of the climate emergency and Cambridge City Council's net zero goals. However, it needs to be more ambitious and to cover water efficiency as well as energy efficiency, given the documented impact of water scarcity on local chalk streams. It also needs to reference the importance of energy efficiency improvements being affordable for home owners, as well as maintaining street scene and building appearance, so that planners can take all these things into consideration, particularly giving the cost of living crisis. It is important to give homeowners confidence that they can make improvements to their homes to increase energy efficiency that are affordable, rather than worrying that only the most expensive windows will be acceptable under planning policies.
SNNP11: Whilst maintaining the street scene is important to many residents, so are improving properties and their energy and water efficiency. This policy needs amending to ensure that environmental performance and affordability are important criteria as well as aesthetic considerations, and that where there is a conflict between SNNP 11 and SNNP 9, SNNP 9 would normally take precedence, unless there are very material reasons otherwise. Again, this is to give home owners the confidence they can make affordable improvements to their properties’ energy and water efficiency.
SNNP12: This policy is somewhat unclear in its intention and risks making home improvements and other construction projects unaffordable, if not impossible. It needs to clarify that it is to ensure that the disruption and noise from construction should not be unreasonable relative to what would be expected from that particular construction project, rather than unreasonable compared to the state when there is no construction project.
SNNP14: Residents should be able to use their front gardens for car parking to enable electric vehicle charging, provided any flooding risk can be mitigated. This will enable take up of electric vehicles, which can reduce carbon emissions from motoring, more cheaply. Charging from a home power supply is likely to be cheaper than relying on commercial providers on street.
SNNP 15 – whilst this should enable residents wishing to build facilities to store bins and bikes to do so, residents should not be required to do so by the policy.

This Neighbourhood Plan is excellent and it has my full support. One (very small) omission is the mention of bats on Barton Road Lake. There are six or more bat species, including the very rare and light-sensitive Barbastrelle bats. There are also very rare invertebrates, which I don't think are listed.
Another (again minor) omission is any photograph of views of this lake. I would be happy to provide (a) photograph(s).
Note I am responding as an individual, not CAR.

Newnham Croft Primary School is grateful that we are recognised as an important community asset and that the school's hedgerows, playing field and wilderness area are similarly acknowledged as contributing to the Green River Corridor and warranting protection. The school also has a large allotment and wild flower area that contribute significantly to the school's rich wildlife.
We support proposals to reduce car use in areas that impact on children travelling to school on foot or by bicycle, for example at the Chedworth street junction, and likewise proposals that prioritise cyclist (and particularly young cyclist) safety.

I strongly object to giving Queen's College planning permission and to the Barton Road Plans.

Cambridge Past, Present & Future is Cambridge’s largest civic society. We are a charity run by local people who are passionate about where they live. We operate in the greater Cambridge area and working with our members, supporters and volunteers we:
• Are dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green setting of Cambridge for people and nature.
• Care about Cambridge and are an independent voice for quality of life in the strategic planning of Greater Cambridge.
• Are working to protect, celebrate and improve the important built heritage of the Cambridge area.
• Own and care for green spaces and historic buildings in and around the city for people and nature, including Wandlebury Country Park, Coton Countryside Reserve, Cambridge Leper Chapel & Barnwell Meadows, Bourn Windmill and Hinxton Watermill.

Cambridge Past, Present & Future object to Policy SNNP4: Creating Local Green Spaces due to the inclusion of site LGS2 Skater’s Meadow Footpath. This does not meet the criteria for Local Green Spaces as set out in the NPPF – mainly point 106(b) below:

105. The designation of land as Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. Designating land as Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or updated, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period.
106. The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:
a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and
c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

We disagree with the ‘Evidence Base for Development Policies’ document (see paragraph 2.3 page 20) and believe that site LGS2 does not meet the criteria for the following reasons:
• It is described as a public footpath not a green area.
• It is used as public footpath and an informal car park (i.e. it is not a green area). We attach two photos which clearly show this to be the case. It is not demonstrably special nor hold a particular local significance. It is not beautiful, of historical significance or recreational value. As a car park it is not tranquil or have abundant wildlife.

The Consultation Statement states that there is no ownership recorded for Skaters’ Meadow Footpath (page 14). We have been advised that the de facto landowners of the site are Cambridge Past, Present & Future and St Catherine’s College.

We request that Skater’s Meadow Footpath is removed from Policy SNNP4.

We share the community’s concerns regarding this space, namely that it is unsafe, unmanaged and sometimes used for anti-social behaviour. We also share the community’s desire to resolve these issues and for this space to be changed for the better. We understand their fears about the future of this space and why they have attempted to use the Neighbourhood Plan as a tool for a solution but that does not make it a green space and it should not be designated as such in the Plan.

There are many potential solutions for this space and there are conflicting views within the community about how to solve them. There are also other communities who use this space who are not local to the area and who will have no say on this neighbourhood plan, they also ought to have a say on its future. Designating the space as a Local Green Space would limit some of the options for improving the space, or make it harder to achieve them, and in our view, this is not in the best interests of achieving a solution and therefore not in the best interests of the wider community.

We have submitted evidence at the consultation stage, and we met with representatives of the Neighbourhood Forum to explain our position to them and so it is disappointing that they have not acted upon our evidence. We understand the difficulties of getting a neighbourhood plan adopted and we believe that achieving this has taken precedent over openly discussing the future of this space with all relevant communities and stakeholders, which would likely have resulted in further delay to the plan and possibly the risk that it might have permanently stalled.

We are very supportive of the plan overall and those involved deserve great credit in steering it to this stage.

I trust that you will take our comments into consideration.

I oppose this Plan. There is no need for further planning restrictions in Newnham. We already have extensive planning rules in place from Council SPD and conservation area status and this duplicates most of it. It will further restrict our freedoms and increase our costs. This Plan does not address the real issues of housing need and transport or even accept the need for difficult trade-offs. It seeks to preserve Newnham 'in aspic' just when we need to embrace change to get things done. This Plan read likes a 'nimbys' charter to preserve the status quo.

I would like to add my support to the aims and the content of the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan. It would add much needed protection and enhancement to an area that has enviable green spaces and biodiversity in the heart of Cambridge. Barton Road Lake is at particular threat from developments around it and I would suggest that additional measures to protect the wildlife and its green boundaries are explored.

Sheep's Green Learner Pool could do with specific mention in the plan to protect this area for children. Item 4.14 the Friends of Sheep's Green Learner Pool involved the Forum in work they did to support the green network including the ecological bug-hotel sign by the pool.

The Miniature Trains (https://cdmes.uk/) is an area worth including in the SNNP as it is an important asset for children and wildlife.

Policy 7.3.2 for Barton Cycle Path must include accessibility needs of children of all ages, who are important users of this route and have different needs to those with disabilities.

I support the plan.

Dear Team, I spent today reading the plan which is quite richly detailed and well laid out. I noted three items worth of comment.

1) Solar night lighting is quite poor along the paths of the Newnham Parkland area adjacent to Fens Causeway and Newnham Road.
2) I hope the bicycle expansion along Barton Road is not at the expense of grass verges and trees which would seriously damage the general ambience.
3) I notes that the young graduate population is generally high and reduced the average age of the community- a good thing. We have already accomodated substantial expansion of this via developments by Kings College (Barton Rd) and Darwin College (Derby Street)(adding to Owlstone Croift-Queens) which are ok, although the Kings development is not at all physically attractive I am surprised this was not better regualted.

But I would strongly oppose any further building developments of this type- e.g., by Queens College- especially if they threaten biodiversity and green belt characteristics of the site, notably in Queens' developments at Paradise and 14 Grange Road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I fully support the proposed South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

I am writing to give our unequivocal support to the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan in its entirety. It is a marvellous and thorough piece of work and covers all areas efficiently.

Thank you for consulting National Highways on the abovementioned Neighbourhood Plan.

National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

It has been noted that once adopted, the Neighbourhood Plan will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and note the details of set out within the draft document are unlikely to have an severe impact on the operation of the trunk road and we offer No Comment.

Thank you for consulting us on the Submission Publication for the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

We aim to reduce flood risk, while protecting and enhancing the water environment. Having previously commented on the plan we have no further detailed comments to make.

Thank you for consulting the LLFA on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

The LLFA have reviewed the Neighbourhood Plan submitted for review under Regulation 14 of Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 and have the following comments:

The inclusion of the Cambridgeshire Flood and Water Supplementary Planning Document, the National Planning Policy Framework, and Cambridge City Council Local Plan Policy 31 and Policy 32 is supported by the LLFA as it covers the importance of managing surface water runoff in new developments using sustainable drainage systems. Cambridge City Local Plan Policy 33 is particularly important for protecting groundwater bodies from pollution. It would be beneficial to include reference to this within the Neighbourhood Plan as South Newnham is located in a Source Protection Zone.

The LLFA is supportive of the promotion of permeable paving as in addition to controlling the rate of surface water leaving the site it also provides water quality treatment. It is also great to see the promotion of green/brown roofs. Other above-ground open SuDS features could be listed such as attenuation basins as these also provide water quality treatment, amenity, and biodiversity benefits.

Some areas of South Newnham are at high risk of surface water flooding. This is highlighted within the Neighbourhood Plan with reference to surface water flood risk maps which allow people to identify the specific locations that are most at risk.

It is acknowledged that Policy SNNP10 refers to Climate Change and the Risk of Local Flooding. It is also recommended that the use of above ground SuDS is encouraged in Policy SNNP10 as these features can enhance landscape character in South Newnham.

The Cambridgeshire County Councils Surface Water Planning Guidance also provides technical guidance for developers.

The LLFA would recommend that Anglian Water, and the Environment Agency as well as any relevant Internal Drainage Board are consulted in relation to flood risk management, to ensure that their comments on this Neighbourhood Plan can be taken into account.

Should you wish to further discuss any of the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

I would like to support the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

It is a very comprehensive document and encompasses a large range of important issues including the green policies and protecting the environment.