Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

There is a need in Greater Cambridge for a significant increase in 'natural' habitats - relatively undisturbed, wild and biodiverse (the rewilding project at Knepp in West Sussex gives many examples of what can be achieved). Parks and recreation grounds do not perform this function. Current 'natural' habitats should be mapped and a long-term project initiated to enlarge these sites and link them by land purchase or agreements with landowners. This must be by wild, dense and bushy hedgerows with trees (wildlife corridors), and with wide, open margins both sides (unploughed) to provide habitat for a range of flora and fauna. In Fulbourn we would like to see better 'nature' connectivity between sites such as the Fulbourn Fen Nature Reserve, the Wibraham River, the Roman Road and Fleam Dyke. The last three are all located on the Fulbourn Parish boundaries. The huge loss of insect life in the countryside, which is the result of intensive farming practices, must be reversed for the benefit of humans, agriculture and wildlife. For example, in fulbourn there is a large swift colony, returning every year as a result of nest boxes installed in new developments and on existing buildings. The colony will only survive if there is a plentiful food source available.

• Unless the site is previously brown-field or intensive agriculture, true and effective biodiversity net gain is often not achieved. Also the density of development may militate against this aim. Short cut grass for recreation does not achieve biodiversity. Undisturbed, wilder land is required. • The way site density is calculated militates against achieving biodiversity enhancement. Developers should provide additional adjacent land exclusively for ‘natural’ spaces, both wild and semi-wild. If this cannot be achieved on site then the required enhancement must be achieved off-site. Such biodiverse areas must be properly managed and funded, in perpetuity, which means professional inspection and assessment, and the will of the authorities to take action if they are not properly maintained.

Yes, strongly agree

• The most important reason for significantly increasing tree cover in Greater Cambridge is the long-term sequestration of CO2, although other important benefits include biodiversity gain, improvements to air quality, quality of life, and in some areas, flood alleviation. New woodlands should not be isolated blocks, but should be located where they can relate and connect to existing woodland or other biodiverse sites to reinforce the green space network. • Tree planting should not take place on the few remaining areas of natural or semi-improved grassland. Meadows are important for a diverse range of flora and fauna, and are very effective in fixing carbon through underground storage. New meadows should be encouraged. Larger areas of new tree cover should incorporate glades or clearings to allow light into the woodland floor which will greatly increase biodiversity. A degree of natural wilding will also be hugely beneficial together with a range of native and wildlife friendly species. • Public funds will need to be expended to convert agricultural land, and farmers need to be encouraged to take on the stewardship of the land for environmental purposes. The loss of some crops will be acceptable as more people reduce their meat and dairy consumption.

• The concept of ‘good growth’ is a misnomer. First it must be decided what that growth entails, the effect on the existing natural and built environment, and the ability of the necessary infrastructure to support it. Growth cannot be ‘good’ unless it is also sustainable and balanced. Any growth will inevitably have negative connotations and, in Greater Cambridge, those are most likely to outweigh any perceived ‘benefits’. • Further growth in Greater Cambridge, over and above the more than 35,000 new homes (and associated employment developments) already allowed for in the 2018 Local Plan, should be curtailed until the impact of these developments can be seen and properly assessed. In the light of recent research and observations which clearly show the climate emergency to be gathering pace (this includes loss of species, loss of insects, and the depletion of water resources locally), there is even a case to be made for the new Local Plan to reduce the present planned growth.

• New developments must not be entirely developer initiated and led. Pre-application engagement requirements must involve representatives from planning officers, SCDC councillors, the Parish Council, and, importantly, other relevant local organisations and individuals. Conceptual/feasibility schemes only (possibly with options) are required at this early stage to allow local knowledge and requirements to inform the development of any scheme design. The resulting ‘brief’ will then be the basis for more detailed design. • Inflated prices paid for a site by developers should not dictate the development design and content. Any Village Design Guide and Neighbourhood Plan must also be the primary sources in the writing of the brief – the authors of these documents should be involved. Developers must understand that their plans need to fully respond to these documents, and not just pay ‘lip-service’ to them. Policies must afford sufficient weight to design guides and neighbourhood plans, such that applications which do not fully conform can be turned down without risk of a successful appeal. • Our experience in Fulbourn shows that so-called ‘consultations’ initiated by the developer are often little more than ‘box-ticking’ exercises. Fully worked-up and detailed plans, sections, and elevations and other associated documents are presented, and it is clear that there is little room for local input to change the proposals. This leaves a sense of frustration and scepticism about the role of the planning regime to connect with and help protect the community from possibly ill-formed and inappropriate development. The local people have a wealth of knowledge about their area that developers cannot, or sometimes do not want to know. • A developer has months, even years, to produce their detailed proposals. The community is given just 21 days to respond to what may be a complex scheme, involving many drawings, and possible hundreds of pages of planning jargon and technical detail. This is not a democratic, level playing field, so early community involvement at feasibility stage could go some way towards resetting the balance.

• For villages, the first level of protection must be through the preparation of Village Design guides and Neighbourhood Plans, which must be given full weight as SPDs (supplementary planning documents). • As well as greater protection for Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings, support needs to be given to local communities to identify Buildings of Local Interest, non-designated heritage assets, and other buildings, streets, views, and green spaces that provide character. If the necessary detail cannot, or has not been fully covered in any VDG or NP, then a separate document might usefully be prepared that can also be given full SPD status.

• In the words of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission (BBBBC) Report Living with Beauty (30 January 2020): “Ask for Beauty. Refuse Ugliness. Promote Stewardship”. • Beauty in a well-designed development is not subjective. Most people know and appreciate beauty when they see it even if they cannot articulate it. That is why people make a bee-line for particular cities and towns, or particular parts of them. Beauty is there in a sense of place, a feeling of a spirit of community, and in the promotion of a healthy and happy life, as well as in a well-designed building. • Developers should be made aware of this ‘pursuit of beauty’ at an early stage, and particularly at any pre-application engagement. Applications should fully conform to VDGs and NPs. Bland, poorly designed, and ugly buildings should be refused – policies in the Local Plan need to make it easier for the LPA to refuse schemes which are not well designed. Might the BBBBC Report help facilitate that objective?

Somewhat unimportant

• Continued economic growth must not be at the expense of the environment (both natural and built) and social cohesion (Cambridge is already one of the most unequal societies in the UK). The proposed doubling of total economic output appears to be related to the combined Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area, but there is no clear indication of how this might relate to the Greater Cambridge area (City and South Cambs). This doubling of economic output (even if desirable, which is doubtful) could take place to some extent outside the Greater Cambridge area, limiting (but not totally avoiding) impact on the Local Plan. No mention is made of the possibility for economic growth to be achieved through increased productivity, rather than a doubling of the population and employment sites. • But what is the vision for Cambridge? – is it to remain a compact city surrounded by Green Belt, or is it to expand, both into the Green Belt and with considerable densification on the outer edges of the city. We believe that the popular desire is for the former vision, a compact city. • We support the provision of employment land in the new settlements to provide opportunities for residents, but also lower cost sites and premises for businesses. But without the necessary infrastructure in place, growth aspirations need to be reduced. The impact of these developments on central Cambridge must also be considered – the new settlements are not far from Cambridge, which will be a magnet for shopping, leisure and social interaction. • Our village, Fulbourn, already has a much above average number of employment premises and opportunities, as has been identified in the writing of the Neighbourhood Plan. This has impacted on the road network and the wider infrastructure, meaning that further growth in this sector is unlikely to be sustainable.

Very inflexible

• Taking Fulbourn as an example, it currently has a good mix of shops and services located in its centre, which serve the residents well. The loss of these premises to other uses, such as housing, would begin to change the dynamic, and these commercial facilities would never return. This would, in turn, force people to travel further afield and impact on the remaining shops and services, perhaps resulting in them becoming uneconomic, especially as rent levels rise. • To encourage use of the existing shops we wish to have support, including financial, to improve the High Street, making it more pleasant, better maintained, less polluted, and less dominated by traffic.

• The effect of the growing population in Greater Cambridge will increasingly put pressure on existing rural attractions. In Fulbourn, the privately owned Nature Reserve (managed by the Wildlife Trust), parts of which are an SSSI, brings traffic from outside the village down the dead-end Stonebridge Lane, a ‘quiet’ rural road with no pavements, while the reserve also becomes a destination for many dog walkers along the permissive paths, not always compatible with its prime function as a site for nature. • Subsequently, new rural attractions need to be urgently created, both parks and wilder areas where the natural world is predominant. This will mean taking land out of agricultural use, but it is essential, both to protect existing biodiverse sites and to provide new areas which can contribute to the quality of life of the expanding population.