Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Nothing chosen

See responses to Questions 5, 6, 16 and 31. Response Q5: No. The most important cross-boundary issues have been omitted completely. Firstly, the presumption of ‘growth’ and the growth corridors of Ox-Cam and London-Stansted-Cambridge have been accepted without question. Secondly, there has been no consideration as to how this major investment of national funds in the relatively well-off south-east will further reduce or limit investment in the North of the UK. Cambridgeshire hosts a significant proportion of this country’s best and most versatile farm land. By the end of this century it is probable that climate change will have caused significant loss of the Fens which currently grow 24% of UK food supply. Therefore it is imperative that the remaining farm land is not built on but preserved for food supply. This is a national issue. There are currently 1 million empty homes in the North and Midlands which could be brought back into use and space for a further 1 million homes on brownfield sites in the North and Midlands. Investment in these would preserve Cambridgeshire’s precious farm land for food supply. Furthermore, climate change and other environmental issues are caused by untrammeled economic growth. Therefore, this Plan should be addressing how to reduce growth whilst maintaining adequate standards of living in our Region. CPRE is very concerned by the complex structure of authorities across local government within Cambridgeshire. Including the GCP and the Combined Authority with County, District and Parish/Town councils there are now four levels of planning authority on some issues and five levels of local government on many others. This brings severe communication challenges and the practicalities associated with the duty to co-operate. Overlapping authorities and bodies cause confusion to the public and make decision making and accountability difficult to understand. For example on transport there has been intense public argument between the Combined Authority and other bodies. Response to Q6: Partially. Climate Change is the most pressing issue of our time. However, all the other themes are predicated upon ‘growth’ and growth has to be halted in a controlled manner if climate change is to be minimised without unacceptable effects on the poorer and more vulnerable people in our society. With that caveat, the other themes are appropriate. Society must recognise there is no such thing as “sustainable development”. The term is a non-sequiter. All development has varying degrees of unsustainability. Just look at building materials. Bricks leave holes in the ground where clay is dug. They create carbon dioxide when the clay is fired and more when they are transported from Belgium or Holland as most are. Cement burns more fuel, generating more carbon dioxide and so on… Therefore development must be minimised and better use made of existing facilities. Response to Q16: There is no such thing as ‘good growth’. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the growth economic model has to be substantially modified or even abandoned if the human race is to survive. However, there can be good developments in which effective planning and design can promote wellbeing and social cohesion. A good mix of housing, with sufficient truly affordable housing which includes housing for different age groups and housing suitable for the physically challenged will assist. Consideration needs to be given to ongoing care and maintenance, including security and the delivery of services, if wellbeing and social cohesion are to be maintained. More green and blue integrated infrastructure will assist mental health and well-being. Design standards should be maintained through provision of Design Guides and Landscape and Townscape Assessment. There must be a strong policy on building to meet the challenges of climate change minimisation and mitigation. Design Standards and build quality musty be firmly enforced once permission for development is granted to ensure the actual development is carried out in precise accordance with standards and policies. Building control must be strengthened and returned to be completely under the control of the local planning authority. Response to Q31: It should take a need-led approach and apply modern modelling techniques to forecast the resulting demand. The skills are available in the City and its two universities. The current conflation of ‘need’ with ‘demand’ is causing a situation where numbers matter more than type and tenure of housing. See CPRE’s study at: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HousingZForesightZPaperZ8.pdf There has to be a better approach than the ‘5-year housing supply’ currently imposed by the NPPF.

A mix of well-designed housing with sufficient genuinely affordable housing following the successful model of South Cambridgeshire. All new housing should be climate change proofed dwellings. The East Cambridgeshire model of ordinary commercial developments branded as ‘Community Land Trusts’ must be resisted strongly. The ethics and distribution of the current housing loans policy of the Combined Authority should be closely examined. For example, the conversion of commercial premises to housing under the ‘permitted development’ rules which has caused such havoc and suffering in Harlow and other communities should be firmly resisted.

Enter into a constructive dialogue with the existing communities and encourage them to participate in defining their needs.

Employ independent, high quality architects to review designs. Also see response to 16. Ensure that building control is operated by the planning authorities and make it a condition that developers do not designate their own building inspectors as some are now allowed to. Response to Q16: There is no such thing as ‘good growth’. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the growth economic model has to be substantially modified or even abandoned if the human race is to survive. However, there can be good developments in which effective planning and design can promote wellbeing and social cohesion. A good mix of housing, with sufficient truly affordable housing which includes housing for different age groups and housing suitable for the physically challenged will assist. Consideration needs to be given to ongoing care and maintenance, including security and the delivery of services, if wellbeing and social cohesion are to be maintained. More green and blue integrated infrastructure will assist mental health and well-being. Design standards should be maintained through provision of Design Guides and Landscape and Townscape Assessment. There must be a strong policy on building to meet the challenges of climate change minimisation and mitigation. Design Standards and build quality musty be firmly enforced once permission for development is granted to ensure the actual development is carried out in precise accordance with standards and policies. Building control must be strengthened and returned to be completely under the control of the local planning authority.

Model the requirement.

Consider the retention and provision of employment space close to or within towns and villages to help reduce commuting. Encourage town and village service providers, shops, pubs and Post Offices. Provide high quality public transport at the lowest possible cost. Learn from the most effective public transport providers in this country in some of our northern cities. More investment is needed in public transport, more frequent and reliable services, better and more direct intra-Urban services. Look to introduce demand management strategies. Continue to create safer cycling and walking routes with joined-up and segregated cycle routes, for example in as is done in the Netherlands. Make better use of technology to encourage car sharing and on-demand public transport as is done in some cities in the USA. Ensure better strategic coordination of public transport such as how E-W Rail will integrate with proposed development options and look to support the last mile via public transport and cycling/ walking.

A properly integrated development of East-West Rail following the CambsBed RailRoad northern route into the City, coupled with re-opening of the Colne Valley line to Sudbury, providing a third rail route to London. This line should be equipped with modern signaling and passing tracks at Cambourne and St Neots/Tempsford station, this allowing Metro services to share the tracks and operate around the City, Northstowe and Cambourne/Bourne. Re-railing of the guided busway to St Ives and reconnection through to Huntingdon to serve Alconbury Weald with a Metro service. More effective bus-rail interchange at all stations. Provision of water supply without further damage to our rivers and the precious chalk streams. Provision of sufficient, safe, well managed electricity supply. No more roads.

No

Absolutely not. See reasons already given above. Green Belt land is also a major carbon sink. CPRE will treat protection of the Cambridge Green Belt as a national issue if necessary.

Nothing chosen

See answers to previous questions. This is a duplicate.

Nothing chosen

No. It is better to develop more smaller sites within villages than few large sites because this is less likely to damage village character. The East Cambs. approach exemplified by the proposed 500 house development at Kennett and excessive numbers of large sites around Soham must be resisted. The density per hectare of new build should reflect the current South Cambs. village hierarchy to maintain the unique necklace of villages in the district and hence the identified individual village character and heritage in the current plan.