Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Agree

3.1 Agree. 3.2 The proposed Local Plan period up to 2040 is considered appropriate and to accord with the requirements set out within the NPPF for local authorities to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites between years 1-15 of the plan (Para 67).

Agree

4.1 Agree. 4.2 The four big themes for the Local Plan are considered suitable and all are considered to be important in the consideration of the spatial distribution of growth in the district, and for the determination of planning applications. The four big themes will generate a new way of planning, this may require a different way to make decisions; to allow other impacts to happen in order to achieve these four priorities. The Local Plan policy framework will need to allow for a clear planning balance to take place to assess and prioritise impacts.

4.4 The increased focus on climate change is welcomed. Climate change policy and good practice is changing quickly, and the plan will need to build in suitable flexibility to accommodate these changes within the lifetime of the plan. Climate change scenarios predict extensive changes by 2050, much of which is dependent on government and human action so there is substantial uncertainty over outcomes. 4.5 A needlessly stringent policy may inadvertently impede progress towards later years in the plan, or undermine results by not allowing for site-specific refinement. For example, policy for electric vehicle charging points should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate that quickly changing technology, as well the current grid challenges in implemented EV charging places. Energy policies should include flexibility for changing legislation, and technology, as well as the opportunity to refine a plan-wide policy for site specifics. As the Zero Carbon Futures Symposium Report (2019) submitted within the evidence base notes on page 10: where targets are too limited, and without consideration of project contexts, policy can drive dysfunctional behaviour such as photovoltaic solar panels being installed on North facing roofs merely to achieve policy compliance not to produce effective carbon reductions. 4.6 Allowing for changing technologies and approaches should also help with viability as technology and approaches improve and are more widely adopted, thereby reducing costs. Escalating targets and policies may be able to accommodate these changes, while providing clarity to developers on the costs of development over time. 4.7 The local plan Sustainability Appraisal (SA) should address variable climate change scenarios, as we would expect that different climate changes scenarios will be of interest at examination. Lack of rigorous assessment of these scenarios in the SA could lead to the plan being found unsound.

4.8 Greater Cambridge is a leading local authority on climate change policy, such as through the early declaration of a climate change emergency and also through the newly adopted Sustainable Development SPD. This leadership should continue, as it is central to the sustainable development of Cambridge, leading to better development for humans, the environment, and for economic development. It should be borne in mind that Cambridge's knowledge economy increasingly demands high sustainability standards: sustainability, health and wellbeing, with climate change at the heart, is a key part of continuing Cambridge's economic development. This should remain a priority as part of a policy framework the recognises climate change as a key part of sustainable development across social, environmental and economic objectives. The planning process is taking too long to bring key brownfield sites forward; the draft AAP was first consulted on in 2014. The merits of early developments on this site needs to be clearly recognised.

Nothing chosen

4.9 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.

4.10 The Local Plan should form a flexible policy framework, so as not to stifle the benefits of new technology or modern methods of construction.

4.11 This Local Plan must deliver effective policy which protects and enhances natural capital. We support delivery of net gain for new development. Such policy must be flexible enough to enable creative and cost-effective solutions for the delivery of net gain and support the Vision for the Natural Future of Cambridgeshire in 2050 as outlined by Natural Cambridgeshire and affiliated organisations. An off-site net gain solution should be clearly allowed for by policy. While it is a Local Plan priority as a part of one of the four big themes, the Local Plan policy must allow for a planning judgement and balanced decision to allow for site and development specific issues to be taken into account.

4.12 This should come through from an up to date base assessment of Greater Cambridge assets, which leads to a Local Plan wide (and beyond) strategy. Development proposals can then be shaped around the identified priorities. As part of a policy framework that allows for off-site mitigation and off-site net gain enhancements can be used to improve the wider green space network.

4.13 The new Local Plan must ensure that policy in this matter is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the required biodiversity net gain in the most effective and efficient way for each development, with both on-site and off-site solutions possible. Strategic off-site opportunities offer the opportunity to significantly increase biodiversity other than providing site specific biodiversity improvements.

Yes, somewhat agree

4.14 Yes. With the right trees, in the right areas. A policy framework to seek tree cover increase, but allows for a planning balance within decision-making to enable the benefits and impacts of each development to be assessed. 4.15 This could be part of an on-site/off-site solution, which could generate notable s106 funds to achieve significant, meaningful and long-term planted and ecological areas. Ecological outcomes rather than an unconditional focus on native species should be considered in new planting.