Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Yes, strongly agree. In designing new development there is an opportunity to secure high standards for climate adaptation and resilience features. Historic England is broadly supportive of the goal to achieve net zero carbon by 2020. A sustainable approach should secure a balance between the benefits that such development delivers and the environmental costs it incurs. The policy should seek to limit and mitigate any such cost to the historic environment. We invite a specific policy relating to the inclusion of renewable technologies within Conservation Areas and with regard to historic buildings and the wider historic landscape. Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter their character and appearance. Special considerations under Part L are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural and historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. In developing policy covering this area you may find the Historic England guidance Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings – Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historically and traditionally constructed buildings https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiencyhistoric-buildings-ptl/heag014-energy-efficiency-partlL.pdf/ to be helpful in understanding these special considerations. We invite a specific policy relating to the inclusion of renewable technologies within Conservation Areas and with regard to historic buildings and the wider historic landscape. A sustainable approach should secure a balance between the benefits that such development delivers and the environmental costs it incurs. The policy should seek to limit and mitigate any such cost to the historic environment. Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter their character and appearance. Special considerations under Part L are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural and historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. In developing policy covering this area you may find the Historic England guidance Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings – Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historically and traditionally constructed buildings https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiencyhistoric-buildings-ptl/heag014-energy-efficiency-partlL.pdf/ to be helpful in understanding these special considerations.

Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is an important facet of sustainable development. There is an important synergy between the historic and natural environment. Landscape parks and open space often have heritage interest, and it would be helpful to highlight this. It is important not to consider ‘multi-functional’ spaces only in terms of the natural environment, health and recreation. It may be helpful to make reference in the text to the role GI can have to play in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. It can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it, likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping to create a sense of place and a tangible link with local history. Opportunities can be taken to link GI networks into already existing green spaces in town or existing historic spaces such as church yards to improve the setting of historic buildings or historic townscape. Maintenance of GI networks and spaces should also be considered so that they continue to serve as high quality places which remain beneficial in the long term. Landscape parks and open space often have heritage interest, and it would be helpful to highlight this. It is important not to consider ‘multi-functional’ spaces only in terms of the natural environment, health and recreation. It may be helpful to make reference in the text to the role GI can have to play in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. It can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it, likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping to create a sense of place and a tangible link with local history. Opportunities can be taken to link GI networks into already existing green spaces in town or existing historic spaces such as church yards to improve the setting of historic buildings or historic townscape. Maintenance of GI networks and spaces should also be considered so that they continue to serve as high quality places which remain beneficial in the long term. In Cambridge the Commons, green corridors, wedges and fingers as well as the green belt provide an important component of the landscape setting of the historic city of Cambridge. These features help to make Cambridge the special and unique place that it is today. They also serve to protect heritage assets and their settings. Cows grazing in the meadows close to the city centre, the iconic views of The Backs, the Commons and meadows all play a crucial role and form part of the character of this historic city. Maintaining and enhancing these features is critical to the future of this City.

Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is an important facet of sustainable development. There is an important synergy between the historic and natural environment. Landscape parks and open space often have heritage interest, and it would be helpful to highlight this. It is important not to consider ‘multi-functional’ spaces only in terms of the natural environment, health and recreation. It may be helpful to make reference in the text to the role GI can have to play in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. It can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it, likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping to create a sense of place and a tangible link with local history. Opportunities can be taken to link GI networks into already existing green spaces in town or existing historic spaces such as church yards to improve the setting of historic buildings or historic townscape. Maintenance of GI networks and spaces should also be considered so that they continue to serve as high quality places which remain beneficial in the long term. Landscape parks and open space often have heritage interest, and it would be helpful to highlight this. It is important not to consider ‘multi-functional’ spaces only in terms of the natural environment, health and recreation. It may be helpful to make reference in the text to the role GI can have to play in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. It can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it, likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping to create a sense of place and a tangible link with local history. Opportunities can be taken to link GI networks into already existing green spaces in town or existing historic spaces such as church yards to improve the setting of historic buildings or historic townscape. Maintenance of GI networks and spaces should also be considered so that they continue to serve as high quality places which remain beneficial in the long term. In Cambridge the Commons, green corridors, wedges and fingers as well as the green belt provide an important component of the landscape setting of the historic city of Cambridge. These features help to make Cambridge the special and unique place that it is today. They also serve to protect heritage assets and their settings. Cows grazing in the meadows close to the city centre, the iconic views of The Backs, the Commons and meadows all play a crucial role and form part of the character of this historic city. Maintaining and enhancing these features is critical to the future of this City.

We welcome the identification of the role for the Local Plan in supporting arts and culture. Cultural heritage and the historic environment have an important role to place in enhancing well-being and social inclusion. Many heritage assets provide opportunities for leisure and relaxation (think Wimpole Hall, Stapleford Granary etc.). It is important that there is access for all to these facilities and that the Plan supports the development of new leisure and recreational facilities, some of which may be focused on heritage and the historic environment.

A positive strategy for the Historic Environment Paragraph 185 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the environment. A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic environment. A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the area. Strategic policy for the historic environment Strategic policies are a very important part of the plan, particularly given the need for Neighbourhood Plans to be in conformity with these policies. Paragraph 20 of the NPPF makes it clear that Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision, amongst other things, the conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Paragraph 21 requires that Plans make explicit which policies are strategic policies. Therefore we would strongly advise the inclusion of a strategic policy that addresses these matters. Policies for Heritage Assets The Plan should include policies for both designated (listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered parks and gardens, Scheduled Monuments) and non-designated heritage assets. These policies need to be consistent with national policy and legislation and attach the appropriate tests dependent on the level of harm and asset type, although not repeat the NPPF verbatim. Policies should be locally specific wherever possible. More detail is given in relation to each asset type below. Listed Buildings Listed buildings include a variety of structures reflecting the areas architectural, industrial and cultural heritage. We will look for policies that carefully consider the preservation and preferably enhancement of these assets and crucially, of their setting. In some instances, a full consideration of setting may require close co-operation with adjoining districts where landscape setting may fall within the boundary of these neighbouring authorities. Where relevant, we will seek evidence of this crossboundary co-operation in the evidence base. We also encourage a policy that addresses the potential listing over the plan period of as yet unidentified heritage assets that further demonstrate the development and activity of the town and its inhabitants. Conservation Areas Each local authority contains a number of designated Conservation Areas. We encourage that the local plan process provides a basis for the continued update and management of Conservation Management Plans, identifying each conservation area’s local identity and distinctiveness. These should identify features that typify and contribute to this special distinctiveness as well as allow for less tangible judgments of character, quality of place and special distinctiveness. The plan will be more robust where it directs future development to take account of the special and distinctive character of Conservation Areas, emphasising that this is a cumulative result of built form, materials, spaces and street patterns, uses and relationships to surrounding features such as the surviving historic buildings and street patterns. We would also welcome provision for any future designation of conservation areas within cities, districts and boroughs as well as specific provision for the landscape setting of different parts of the area. Registered Parks and Gardens It may be appropriate to specifically identify Registered Parks and Gardens as protected by any such policy. The policy should anticipate and protect any future designations. Scheduled Monuments and other Archaeology We welcome specific provision for the protection and enhancement of archaeology as well as emphasis that sites of archaeological importance can occur everywhere. We encourage clear guidance on expectations for archaeological recording and the submission of records with an appropriate public record (e.g.: Historic Environment Records) for archaeological remains that are not to be retained in situ. Where suggested sites are located in areas of known archaeological potential, weight should be given to this as a consideration in site selection and the comparison with alternate locations. We encourage close liaison with the County Archaeologist at site allocation stage. Policies should make provision for non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets (footnote 63 of the NPPF). Non-designated Heritage Assets In national policy terms, ‘non-designated heritage assets’ (including those on a local list) are recognised as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions on applications affecting such assets will require a balanced judgment that has regard to the significance of the asset and any harm or loss: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainabledevelopment/delivering-sustainable-development/12-conserving-and-enhancing-thehistoric-environment/ Government guidance recognises that local lists and local criteria for identifying nondesignated heritage assets are a positive thing and can help with decision-making: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/conserving-andenhancing-the-historic-environment/what-are-non-designated-heritage-assets-andhow-important-are-they/ We would recommend that as a minimum a local authority has established criteria for identifying non-designated heritage assets, and ideally has a local list of assets linked to planning policies in their Local Plan. A good example is Peterborough: http://www2.peterborough.gov.uk/environment/listed_buildings/locally_listed_building s.aspx There are enough appeal cases to indicate that inspectors regard non-designated heritage assets, and something on a local list, as an important material consideration in planning decisions. In fact, where there isn’t a local list, some inspectors have been unable to give as much weight to a non-designated heritage asset. Our website contains a number of appeal cases and if you search for ‘locally listed heritage asset’ or ‘non-designated heritage asset’, you will get relevant ones: http://www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/planning-cases/ Robust provision for these heritage assets will increase the soundness of your forthcoming plan. Heritage at Risk We recommend the inclusion of a policy basis to address Heritage at Risk. We also recommend the creation and management of a local Heritage at Risk register for Grade II listed buildings. Similarly, we welcome positive local solutions for addressing all heritage at risk, whether nationally or locally identified. The National Heritage at Risk Register can be found and searched here by local authority: www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk Historic England has published guidance pertaining to Local Listing which you may find helpful: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/local-heritagelisting-advice-note-7/ Landscape/Townscape/Historic Landscape Characterisation The Plan should also include policies covering the landscape and townscape including the setting of the city and historic landscape characterisation (we recommend that further work may be needed in this area to ensure a robust evidence base for the Local Plan – see our comments on the evidence base section). Historic Shop Fronts High streets and retail in general are under considerable pressure at the present time. The Local Plan should seek opportunities to support High Streets and enhance the historic environment of these areas. The retention of original/historic or significant shop fronts elements is often integral to the character of these buildings and that of the wider street scene. The Local Plan should highlight the importance of retaining or restoring historic shop front features. This is both in terms of the positive contribution historic shop fronts make to the character of an area, but also the economic benefit of providing traditional and bespoke shopping units to shop owners. A good example of how historic shop fronts can positively contribute to an area both aesthetically and economically is where Derby City Council teamed up with English Heritage (now Historic England) to help restore an area of Victorian and Edwardian shops, the Strand. The restoration of a number of shops within the area has meant that a previously underused section of the city provides bespoke shopping, now sees a much larger footfall and is considered to be a national success. The council have also seen a ripple effect of surrounding properties being restored.

A positive strategy for the Historic Environment Paragraph 185 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the environment. A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic environment. A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the area. Strategic policy for the historic environment Strategic policies are a very important part of the plan, particularly given the need for Neighbourhood Plans to be in conformity with these policies. Paragraph 20 of the NPPF makes it clear that Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision, amongst other things, the conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Paragraph 21 requires that Plans make explicit which policies are strategic policies. Therefore we would strongly advise the inclusion of a strategic policy that addresses these matters. Policies for Heritage Assets The Plan should include policies for both designated (listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered parks and gardens, Scheduled Monuments) and non-designated heritage assets. These policies need to be consistent with national policy and legislation and attach the appropriate tests dependent on the level of harm and asset type, although not repeat the NPPF verbatim. Policies should be locally specific wherever possible. More detail is given in relation to each asset type below. Listed Buildings Listed buildings include a variety of structures reflecting the areas architectural, industrial and cultural heritage. We will look for policies that carefully consider the preservation and preferably enhancement of these assets and crucially, of their setting. In some instances, a full consideration of setting may require close co-operation with adjoining districts where landscape setting may fall within the boundary of these neighbouring authorities. Where relevant, we will seek evidence of this crossboundary co-operation in the evidence base. We also encourage a policy that addresses the potential listing over the plan period of as yet unidentified heritage assets that further demonstrate the development and activity of the town and its inhabitants. Conservation Areas Each local authority contains a number of designated Conservation Areas. We encourage that the local plan process provides a basis for the continued update and management of Conservation Management Plans, identifying each conservation area’s local identity and distinctiveness. These should identify features that typify and contribute to this special distinctiveness as well as allow for less tangible judgments of character, quality of place and special distinctiveness. The plan will be more robust where it directs future development to take account of the special and distinctive character of Conservation Areas, emphasising that this is a cumulative result of built form, materials, spaces and street patterns, uses and relationships to surrounding features such as the surviving historic buildings and street patterns. We would also welcome provision for any future designation of conservation areas within cities, districts and boroughs as well as specific provision for the landscape setting of different parts of the area. Registered Parks and Gardens It may be appropriate to specifically identify Registered Parks and Gardens as protected by any such policy. The policy should anticipate and protect any future designations. Scheduled Monuments and other Archaeology We welcome specific provision for the protection and enhancement of archaeology as well as emphasis that sites of archaeological importance can occur everywhere. We encourage clear guidance on expectations for archaeological recording and the submission of records with an appropriate public record (e.g.: Historic Environment Records) for archaeological remains that are not to be retained in situ. Where suggested sites are located in areas of known archaeological potential, weight should be given to this as a consideration in site selection and the comparison with alternate locations. We encourage close liaison with the County Archaeologist at site allocation stage. Policies should make provision for non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets (footnote 63 of the NPPF). Non-designated Heritage Assets In national policy terms, ‘non-designated heritage assets’ (including those on a local list) are recognised as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions on applications affecting such assets will require a balanced judgment that has regard to the significance of the asset and any harm or loss: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainabledevelopment/delivering-sustainable-development/12-conserving-and-enhancing-thehistoric-environment/ Government guidance recognises that local lists and local criteria for identifying nondesignated heritage assets are a positive thing and can help with decision-making: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/conserving-andenhancing-the-historic-environment/what-are-non-designated-heritage-assets-andhow-important-are-they/ We would recommend that as a minimum a local authority has established criteria for identifying non-designated heritage assets, and ideally has a local list of assets linked to planning policies in their Local Plan. A good example is Peterborough: http://www2.peterborough.gov.uk/environment/listed_buildings/locally_listed_building s.aspx There are enough appeal cases to indicate that inspectors regard non-designated heritage assets, and something on a local list, as an important material consideration in planning decisions. In fact, where there isn’t a local list, some inspectors have been unable to give as much weight to a non-designated heritage asset. Our website contains a number of appeal cases and if you search for ‘locally listed heritage asset’ or ‘non-designated heritage asset’, you will get relevant ones: http://www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/planning-cases/ Robust provision for these heritage assets will increase the soundness of your forthcoming plan. Heritage at Risk We recommend the inclusion of a policy basis to address Heritage at Risk. We also recommend the creation and management of a local Heritage at Risk register for Grade II listed buildings. Similarly, we welcome positive local solutions for addressing all heritage at risk, whether nationally or locally identified. The National Heritage at Risk Register can be found and searched here by local authority: www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk Historic England has published guidance pertaining to Local Listing which you may find helpful: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/local-heritagelisting-advice-note-7/ Landscape/Townscape/Historic Landscape Characterisation The Plan should also include policies covering the landscape and townscape including the setting of the city and historic landscape characterisation (we recommend that further work may be needed in this area to ensure a robust evidence base for the Local Plan – see our comments on the evidence base section). Historic Shop Fronts High streets and retail in general are under considerable pressure at the present time. The Local Plan should seek opportunities to support High Streets and enhance the historic environment of these areas. The retention of original/historic or significant shop fronts elements is often integral to the character of these buildings and that of the wider street scene. The Local Plan should highlight the importance of retaining or restoring historic shop front features. This is both in terms of the positive contribution historic shop fronts make to the character of an area, but also the economic benefit of providing traditional and bespoke shopping units to shop owners. A good example of how historic shop fronts can positively contribute to an area both aesthetically and economically is where Derby City Council teamed up with English Heritage (now Historic England) to help restore an area of Victorian and Edwardian shops, the Strand. The restoration of a number of shops within the area has meant that a previously underused section of the city provides bespoke shopping, now sees a much larger footfall and is considered to be a national success. The council have also seen a ripple effect of surrounding properties being restored.

Design We strongly encourage provision for the historic environment throughout the plan, not solely within heritage focused policies. Most particularly, we seek a specific requirement for consideration of the historic environment within the design policies of the local plan which should seek to draw on opportunities offered by the historic environment and reflect local character and distinctiveness. This should not stymie contemporary development but should require an appreciation of the significance and character of the historic environment in producing a high standard of design. We highlight the recent publication Building Better Building Beautiful Commission report which may help shape your policy in this area. Tall Buildings and the Historic Environment We would also welcome this in relation to tall buildings policy that may come forward as part of the plan. See our comments above in relation to tall buildings evidence.

Neither agree nor disagree

Neither agree nor disagree. The number of homes to be provided should at least in part be influenced by the environmental capacity of the area to support new development. A study should be undertaken to consider the capacity of the area both in terms of considering the natural and historic environment, infrastructure capacity and planning constraints. This in turn will help to inform the appropriate level of growth. As the OxCam Arc agenda continues to emerge, this may also have a bearing on the required level of growth for the area. Without such evidence it is difficult to comment on an appropriate level of growth for the area.

Nothing chosen

Summary: We question whether a further release of the Green Belt is needed for the reasons set out below (particularly national policy in relation to permanence of Green Belt combined with the previous substantial releases of land from the Green Belt). If further release is deemed necessary to provide a more sustainable development option, can this be based on the existing evidence base prepared in 2015? If this evidence base is not considered sufficient, then any review will need to factor in the purposes of the Green Belt including that of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns and preserving the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic core. We set out our comments in greater detail below. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that one of the five purposes of the Green Belt is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Over the years it has been made clear that this purpose is of particular importance to the Green Belts around the following six historic cities: including Cambridge (see The Green Belts, MHSO, 1962 and Extract from Hansard, 8 November 1988) The three stated purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt are to: -preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre -maintain and enhance the quality of its setting -prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city From a heritage perspective, it should also be noted that the Green Belt serves to provide additional protection to heritage assets, such as the cluster of scheduled monuments to the south of the City or historic settlements including their Conservation Areas, which might otherwise be subsumed by development. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF emphasises that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Paragraph 139c of the NPPF makes it clear that Plans should identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. It is clearly not the intention of national policy that another tranche of land should be taken out of the green belt at every Local Plan review. The 2006 Local Plan saw a substantial release of Green Belt land from the inner green belt boundary with land also released and safeguarded for development beyond the Plan period. There were further releases of green belt land in the 2018 plan, in part due to the fact that the airport land had not come forward for development. As the NPPF prescribes, Green Belt should have a degree of permanence in the long term and should endure beyond the plan period. We therefore question whether there should be further release of land from the Green Belt for this new Local Plan. There is already substantial land released at the airport which may come forward for development, subject to confirmation of the relocation of Marshalls. In addition, there is substantial land at North East Cambridge (sewage works/rail siding etc.) which can accommodate a significant number of new dwellings. We acknowledge that there may be unintended consequences which you will need to take into account should you choose not to review the Green Belt including leap frogging, over-development of inset and non-Green Belt settlements, pressure on the city of Cambridge, leading to erosion of character/identity etc. However if in weighing up all of the above it is concluded that further development of Green Belt land is required and justified in terms of providing a sustainable pattern of development, then consideration is needed as to whether the current evidence base for the Green Belt, prepared during the last EiP by LDA Design, the Cambridge Inner Green Belt Boundary Study 2015/6 (CIGBBS), would provide a sufficient basis and evidence for further release or whether an update or completely new Green Belt review should be undertaken. The findings of that report were broadly accepted by the Inspectors who stated, ‘We conclude that the CIGBBS is a robust approach which follows the PAS advice.’ The CIGBBS concluded that ‘all areas of land within the study area (with the exception of one small area, sub area 8.2 – [Shelford Rugby Club] are important to Green Belt purposes but the reasons differ from one area to another.’ For example: ‘West of the city, the Inner Green Belt plays a critical role in maintaining the impression of a compact city, with countryside close to the historic core. The rural character of the land emphasises this and is seen as the foreground in views from approaches to the city, the M11 and the countryside west of the M11. South-east of the city, the rising land of the Gog Magog Hills is a distinctive element of the setting of Cambridge, and is visible in views from within and across the city. The foothills extend to the urban edge in places; elsewhere, flatter land at the foot of the hills is also important as the foreground to the city in views from the elevated land. East of the city, the Fen and Fen Edge landscapes, while less visible than the Gog Magog Hills, are an equally close link to the historic origins of the city at the meeting point of three landscapes [etc…] Whilst virtually all areas of land within the study area have been assessed as being of importance to Green Belt purposes, consideration has been given as to whether it may nevertheless be possible for certain areas of land to be released from the Green Belt for development without significant harm to Green Belt purposes.’ This latter assessment identified a few parcels of land to the south and east of the city for development, subject to defined parameters. These were brought forward during the last Local Plan. It would seem therefore that the evidence base, at least for the inner boundary, is fairly robust and up-to-date. That said, there could be a case for a review of land within the Green Belt, but not forming part of the inner boundary e.g. around villages or for a new settlement, as in the case of York where a new settlement has been proposed within the Green Belt (Plan currently at EIP). If then it is concluded that an updated or new Green Belt review is required and is undertaken, it is imperative that the review gives sufficient consideration to the purpose of the Green belt to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Historic towns and former towns are situated across the region and should form a consideration in any review of Green Belt. Without an appreciation of the history of the region’s historic settlements and their close relationship to their surrounding landscapes, it is not possible to properly ascribe a value to the openness of the Green Belt land around them. Consideration of the value of the Green Belt requires understanding the historic significance of this open landscape and how this contributes to the significance of the historic environment. Whilst Green Belt reviews often divide the area into parcels of land to make the assessment exercise manageable, parcels should not be solely reviewed individually within their immediate context. It also is important to understand how collectively they achieve the strategic aims of the Green Belt. Finally, if the Green Belt is reviewed again, we would strongly advise that sufficient land is identified to ensure that land is safeguarded for development beyond the plan period and that the boundaries can endure without the need for a further review s part of the next Local Plan review.

Nothing chosen

Development on the edge of villages should give consideration to settlement character and identity. Development of jobs and homes should seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment through appropriate development that minimises harm to the historic environment through careful siting and appropriate design. Coalesence is to be avoided. There may be some villages that are more or less suited to absorbing additional growth, in part dependent upon their historic character and settlement morphology. Consideration will need to be given to the capacity of individual villages and their sensitivity to change.