Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

In adddition to the requirements included we think children’s play should be considered more broadly than just ‘play area’ there is a lack of integrated play and playable landscapes in Cambridge and we would like to see policies similar The London Plan S4 including:
“incorporate accessible routes for children and young people to existing play provision, schools and youth centres, within the local area, that enable them to play and move around their local neighbourhood safely and independently.
for large-scale public realm developments, incorporate incidental play space to make the space more playable”
We would like to see public realm incorporate more elements for engaging children. Evidenced through the success Dinky Doors https://www.dinkydoors.co.uk/ has had on engaging children while walking and making space for them in the public realm.

Support this policy
Point d regarding food growing should be strengthened to actively encourage integration of food bearing landscapes for urban foraging. This will become increasingly important with respect to future climate and food security impacts recently cited in the government paper: Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-security-assessment-on-global-biodiversity-loss-ecosystem-collapse-and-national-security
This policy should also include opportunities for playable landscapes

We would like to see more historic buildings retrofitted with sustainability measures. Max Fordham have experience of successfully doing this with case studies such as Trinity College New Court Grade I listed retrofit, The Engine Shed stirling, integration of heat pumps and solar panels onto a number of heritage assets including the Kings College Cambridge Chapel roof. We would like to see great consideration of the importance of climate change mitigation and adaptation be considered weighing up any impacts on heritage assets.

Housing growth is becoming more dispersed while employment remains concentrated around Cambridge.
Dispersed growth will increase pressure on transport corridors and make sustainable travel harder
Further detail of where employment is planned across the geography should be provided.
Theme 3: Density, car ownership and sustainable travel
Higher-density development can support sustainable travel, but only when it is paired with low car ownership and strong alternatives to driving. In Greater Cambridge, dense schemes are too often delivered alongside high levels of private parking, which consumes land, dominates streets and undermines walking and cycling. This also pushes up housing costs, forcing households without cars to subsidise parking through higher prices.

The Local Plan should explicitly link higher density development to lower car ownership, avoid assuming one car per home, and require parking to be optional, generally separated from housing, and transparently priced. Without this, density will continue to be experienced as a problem rather than an opportunity.

Higher density development must come with significantly lower levels of car ownership, the parking provision should be proportionate to location and to the level of density. Central cambridge developments should be car free.
Dense development needs strong walking, cycling and public transport to succeed

We strongly support this proposal but think it should be strengthened.
Point 1 should reference lean design - this is often the biggest opportunity for reducing embodied carbon - efficient structure, large embodied carbon elements - avoidance of basements and cantilevers
Intensity of landuse should be a consideration for demolition where it is likely to provide buildings that might otherwise be built on virgin soil (or peat outside of cities) (reference policy CC/CS).

We support this proposal, however we think it should be strengthened by requiring a soil management plan on larger allocation sites regardless of whether they contain peat.
In addition allocation sites that are identified on peat based soil locations should not be supported. In this case it would be preferable to demolish an existing building on brownfield site (reference policy CC/CE) and intensify density there.