Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for Friends of St Matthew's Piece search
New searchComment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/MO: Monitoring
Representation ID: 201664
Received: 22/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
Monitoring must ensure that the positive intentions in e.g., Policy BG/TC (such as the 30% minimum gain in tree canopy) is properly supported, monitored and properly enforced over the lifespan of the long-lived trees. Financial mechanisms must be built into approvals for developments that ensure this monitoring is meaningful and functionally effective (even if the applicant's corporate lifespan is short). In CC/DC, Design 'solutions' intended to address a proposal's potential exacerbation of the local Urban Heat Island Effect must be rigorously monitored to ensure they actually deliver - and improved upon if they fail (to prevent severe consequent health impacts).
Monitoring must ensure that the positive intentions in e.g., Policy BG/TC (such as the 30% minimum gain in tree canopy) is properly supported, monitored and properly enforced over the lifespan of the long-lived trees. Financial mechanisms must be built into approvals for developments that ensure this monitoring is meaningful and functionally effective (even if the applicant's corporate lifespan is short). In CC/DC, Design 'solutions' intended to address a proposal's potential exacerbation of the local Urban Heat Island Effect must be rigorously monitored to ensure they actually deliver - and improved upon if they fail (to prevent severe consequent health impacts).
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/TC: Improving tree canopy cover and the tree population
Representation ID: 201700
Received: 23/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
✅Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌Point 2: If less than 30% is agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater the compensatory provision)
❌Point 3a: hedgerows should meet Wildlife Trust size standards
✅Point 3b support protecting "space below ground"
❌Point 4a change text to "climate crisis" THROUGHOUT
✅Point 4b support "long lived trees"
✅Point 6 strongly support
❌Point 7: define ancient and woodland trees explicitly as by the Woodland Trust
✅Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌Point 2: If less than 30% is agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater the compensatory provision)
❌Point 3a: hedgerows should meet Wildlife Trust size standards
✅Point 3b support protecting "space below ground"
❌Point 4a change text to "climate crisis" THROUGHOUT
✅Point 4b support "long lived trees"
✅Point 6 strongly support
❌Point 7: define ancient and woodland trees explicitly as by the Woodland Trust
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Representation ID: 201735
Received: 24/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
❌Throughout this Policy AND the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌Point 1: Design solutions must "respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis" (not "positively respond to our changing climate").
❌Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point 3: delete the words "where possible".
❌Throughout this Policy AND the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌Point 1: Design solutions must "respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis" (not "positively respond to our changing climate").
❌Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point 3: delete the words "where possible".
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy GP/ST: Skyline and tall buildings
Representation ID: 201799
Received: 25/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
❌Point a (Add): Mandatory protection for domestic-scale building heights, particularly in Conservation Areas.
✅Point b "For Cambridge.... relevant viewpoints" - support.
✅Point d - strongly support.
❌Point e: the use of of "adequate" is too weak and undefined, particularly for surrounding properties or spaces. Must be clarified, strengthened and improved.
❌On "microclimate", Point e is far too weak. It must also require that the effect of any development should prove that, at minimum, it will not increase (and, ideally, decrease) the Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point a (Add): Mandatory protection for domestic-scale building heights, particularly in Conservation Areas.
✅Point b "For Cambridge.... relevant viewpoints" - support.
✅Point d - strongly support.
❌Point e: the use of of "adequate" is too weak and undefined, particularly for surrounding properties or spaces. Must be clarified, strengthened and improved.
❌On "microclimate", Point e is far too weak. It must also require that the effect of any development should prove that, at minimum, it will not increase (and, ideally, decrease) the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Object
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/PRIA/EG: Eastern Gate
Representation ID: 201840
Received: 22/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
115524 would be a disaster for this community. This Site was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of this Site must be permanently enforced. This will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space.
St Matthew's Piece is the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this is the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed) all pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
115524 would be a disaster for this community. This Site was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of this Site must be permanently enforced. This will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space.
St Matthew's Piece is the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this is the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed) all pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Representation ID: 202164
Received: 27/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
✅Point 1a & e - support
✅Points 1b, c & d & Point 3- strongly support
✅Point 1a & e - support
✅Points 1b, c & d & Point 3- strongly support
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Biodiversity and green spaces
Representation ID: 202169
Received: 27/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
It is a serious weakness to lack an equivalent to the crucial clear Appendix I ‘Table of Standards’. Key numbers and methods are spread across policies, guidance and evidence, providing less direct visibility for the most POS-deficient wards. This draft plan’s wording is less focused on the ward‑level deficits in Cambridge. This makes it harder even for anyone to highlight clear, plan‑embedded, numeric requirements and locally targeted obligations for Public Open Space in underserved wards like Petersfield. Furthermore, the most recent ward-level data rely on the ancient 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy document. These serious flaws must be rectified.
It is a serious weakness to lack an equivalent to the crucial clear Appendix I ‘Table of Standards’. Key numbers and methods are spread across policies, guidance and evidence, providing less direct visibility for the most POS-deficient wards. This draft plan’s wording is less focused on the ward‑level deficits in Cambridge. This makes it harder even for anyone to highlight clear, plan‑embedded, numeric requirements and locally targeted obligations for Public Open Space in underserved wards like Petersfield. Furthermore, the most recent ward-level data rely on the ancient 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy document. These serious flaws must be rectified.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Climate Change
Representation ID: 202448
Received: 28/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
Cambridge City Council has declared both a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. It passed a 2019 motion recognising climate change as a serious risk to the city and calling for stronger action. Climate change mitigation means much more than taking action to reduce the causes of climate change. It must include taking action to mitigate the effects of the existing climate crisis on residents to prevent health disasters and the surrounding biosphere to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity . Sound sustainable development must require that all development reduces (or, at minimum, does not exacerbate) the surrounding Urban Heat Island Effect.
Cambridge City Council has declared both a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. It passed a 2019 motion recognising climate change as a serious risk to the city and calling for stronger action. Climate change mitigation means much more than taking action to reduce the causes of climate change. It must include taking action to mitigate the effects of the existing climate crisis on residents to prevent health disasters and the surrounding biosphere to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity . Sound sustainable development must require that all development reduces (or, at minimum, does not exacerbate) the surrounding Urban Heat Island Effect.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
Representation ID: 202454
Received: 28/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
Cambridge City Council has declared both a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. It passed a 2019 motion recognising climate change as a serious risk to the city and calling for stronger action. Designs for new development must therefore take active steps to mitigate the effects of any new structures in order to prevent negative health impacts on local residents and on the surrounding biosphere (including negative impacts on biodiversity). Sound sustainable development must require new developments to reduce (or, at minimum, not exacerbate) the surrounding Urban Heat Island Effect.
Cambridge City Council has declared both a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. It passed a 2019 motion recognising climate change as a serious risk to the city and calling for stronger action. Designs for new development must therefore take active steps to mitigate the effects of any new structures in order to prevent negative health impacts on local residents and on the surrounding biosphere (including negative impacts on biodiversity). Sound sustainable development must require new developments to reduce (or, at minimum, not exacerbate) the surrounding Urban Heat Island Effect.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments
Representation ID: 202468
Received: 28/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
I strongly support all effective proposals to manage efficiently the use of our precious potable water resources as well as useful greywater and rainwater. These should apply not only to residential but also to all commercial developments, as well as university departments, hotels, research facilities and student accommodation. But: where are proposals to measure, monitor and regulate water abstraction via boreholes into the Cambridge aquifers from University-owned land? If such proposals are elsewhere in the Plan, and sufficiently rigorous, I endorse them. If missing, please introduce. Finally, freshwater supply cannot sensibly be considered without simultaneously ensuring adequate balancing wastewater management.
I strongly support all effective proposals to manage efficiently the use of our precious potable water resources as well as useful greywater and rainwater. These should apply not only to residential but also to all commercial developments, as well as university departments, hotels, research facilities and student accommodation. But: where are proposals to measure, monitor and regulate water abstraction via boreholes into the Cambridge aquifers from University-owned land? If such proposals are elsewhere in the Plan, and sufficiently rigorous, I endorse them. If missing, please introduce. Finally, freshwater supply cannot sensibly be considered without simultaneously ensuring adequate balancing wastewater management.
