Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.

The following comments on the draft Local Plan are submitted on behalf of the Madingley Road Area Resident's Association (MRARA).

1. Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

The MRARA supports the concerns raised by our neighbour residents’ association, the NNRA with regard to this policy. As the value of an open space is generally intrinsic to its location, there is usually no potential for replacing a protected open space with something equivalent or better nearby. Decisions on whether or not to build in truly exceptional circumstances should be developer neutral.


2. Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

There are many positive aspects to the policy, but it is flawed in considering public open space (POS) relative to Greater Cambridge rather than by City ward or sector. The policy includes an NEGIF proposed target of 3ha/1000 population, which is easily met by Greater Cambridge (8.7) and met, but by far less, by Newnham ward (3.6). The MRARA includes part of Castle ward and north Newnham along Madingley Road. The figures for Castle ward and north Newnham are 0.7 and 0 respectively, nowhere near the NEGIF proposed target.

The draft plan does not seem to reference up-to-date data. The most recent seems to be the 2011 Open Space and Recreation Strategy Document. Since 2011 an area of land in Newnham ward previously categorised as public has been clarified as private (NAT 19 Meadow Triangle) and private open land has been lost to development (SPO 41, Cocks and Hens Lawn Tennis Club). The club was relocated several miles away despite the requirements of current Local Plan Policy 67. Unless open spaces are considered by ward or City sector, POS targets cannot be met in a way that benefits local residents and excessive loss of private and public open space cannot be easily guarded against.


3. Appendix H: Skyline and tall buildings guidance

The Local Plan 2018 defines height thresholds in metres “assuming a flat roof with no rooftop plant”. This clarification is not included in the draft guidance. For industrial and laboratory buildings rooftop HVAC equipment can have considerable height. A roof terrace can add height and change the character of a building. The draft plan should clarify that the Skyline and tall buildings guidance will be applied for local context heights assuming a flat roof and no rooftop plant. The draft plan introduces a new “Increased Urban Height Zone” principally applicable to the Biomedical Campus. Given the significant increase in building heigh that might be permitted in this zone, other areas that might be covered should be clearly identified if known.


4. Policy CC/IW: Integrated water management, sustainable drainage and water quality

Section 4.h. It must be absolutely clear who is responsible for future management and maintenance of SuDS. ‘Details’ is not sufficiently specific.


5. Policy I/DI: Digital and telecommunications infrastructure

Lessons from previous digital infrastructure upgrades should be applied and the policy should require highways and active travel networks to be left in satisfactory unharmed condition after upgrade work requiring trenching and re-surfacing is completed. The policy is vague regarding the requirements of proposals in historic environments. More detail of what proposals would be assessed on beyond ’special regard’ would be helpful. Clarity regarding notified neighbour lists for planning applications would be helpful, especially if the requirement for pre-consultation is dropped. At a minimum, all properties that would lose visual amenity and those close to the site should be notified.


6. Policy S/NCW: Eddington, Cambridge

The Context does not include the need to respect the Ascension Burial Ground as a City Wildlife Site and a cemetery. The Context does not include the woodland at the southeastern edge where the site borders Archaeology/Astronomy nor the mature gardens that surround the eastern boundary of the site.

Public Space includes no provision for amenity to the east of the site.

The provision for Nature does not include an east-west green corridor for wildlife between the Green Belt on the west of the site and the city wildlife site, the large mature gardens of Castle ward, college playing fields and Archaeology/Astronomy grounds to the east and southeast of the site.

There are several errors and omissions in Supporting Information Figure 66. Most notable are the absence of the Ascension Burial Ground City Wildlife Site and a Grade II* listed property on the eastern boundary of the site. The location of the primary school is incorrect. The location of mature hedgerows is not shown.


7. Light & Visual Pollution

The draft Local Plan does not seem to include policies equivalent equivalent to Local Plan 2018 Policy 34: Light Pollution Control and Policy 65 Visual Pollution. The requirements in these policies should be carried forward.