Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

• In general, we support planned new settlements as opposed to the enlargement of villages and the densification of Cambridge. However, further new settlements should not be planned unless the case has been made for further growth in Greater Cambridge. Elsewhere we have questioned the sustainability and advisability of further growth. • New settlements, if built, must be large enough to provide education, employment, retail and leisure activities so as to reduce travel to, and dependence on, Cambridge. The centre of Cambridge cannot continue to absorb more and more visitors, whether from near or afar, and a degree of ‘disneyfication’ has already taken place from uncontrolled tourism.

• A few villages may be able to accept and support some modest growth, but this can only be determined by close consultation with each village. Priority should be given to housing people from the local community, rather than allowing growth that treats Fulbourn as a dormitory village, or benefits those buying properties purely as investments. • Fulbourn has several schemes in the pipeline, applications which have either outline or full planning permission. No further development for either housing or employment should be considered until these schemes are built and fully occupied, and their impact on the village has been assessed and understood.

• There is, as yet, no clear Vision of the sort of place Greater Cambridge should be in 30 or more years. We support the vision of retaining Cambridge as a compact city surrounded by Green Belt within which independent villages are located. Greater Cambridge should not be allowed to just grow and grow, even if better transport infrastructure is put in place. There must be a limit to growth if the area is to retain the character and benefits that are appreciated by existing residents, and make it attractive to others. This reality has not yet been addressed but is essential as it will inform all other decisions.

• 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. These should be by wide, 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 Wilbraham 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. In Fulbourn, there is a large swift colony, returning every year, as a result of nest boxes being installed in new developments and on existing buildings. The colony will only prosper if there is the 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?