Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

The aims are, of course, admirable as far as they go. However, the climate impact of building on green field land does not seem to me to be taken into account. If agricultural land is taken out of food production there will be impacts if that food then has to be imported. The Plan should protect good quality agricultural land. In addition, "Considering the role of the plan regarding materials used in the construction process." is very weak given the large amounts of emissions generated by the production of cement and concrete, the manufacture and import of steel.

This is a very dry area of the country and the Cambridge aquifer is already under stress. Even with new developments being more water efficient, the Cambridge area cannot continue to grow indefinitely without there being a serious water shortage. Either water will have to be imported from other areas of the country which is surely not sustainable, and/or existing residents will have their water rationed. You will not have looked after the interests of residents if that is the outcome. There needs to be an independent study by experts of the levels of growth that can be sustained given the state of the aquifer.

New development should respect historic buildings, conservation areas and the character and size of existing communities. It should not be out of keeping and should not overwhelm existing communities.

The aims are, of course, admirable as far as they go. However, the climate impact of building on green field land does not seem to me to be taken into account. If agricultural land is taken out of food production there will be impacts if that food then has to be imported. The Plan should protect good quality agricultural land. In addition, "Considering the role of the plan regarding materials used in the construction process." is very weak given the large amounts of emissions generated by the production of cement and concrete, the manufacture and import of steel.

This is a very dry area of the country and the Cambridge aquifer is already under stress. Even with new developments being more water efficient, the Cambridge area cannot continue to grow indefinitely without there being a serious water shortage. Either water will have to be imported from other areas of the country which is surely not sustainable, and/or existing residents will have their water rationed. You will not have looked after the interests of residents if the latter is the outcome. There needs to be an independent study by experts of the levels of growth that can be sustained given the state of the aquifer, and if necessary, growth has to be curbed.

Historic buildings, conservation areas and the character and size of existing communities should not be overwhelmed by new developments. Greater priority should be given to preserving them. Not all growth can go ahead without detriment to the historic environment.

Somewhat unimportant

Of course, the Plan should cater for some growth eg existing businesses need to be able to expand, but doubling the level of economic growth is not an appropriate target nor can it be sustainable. There will not be the infrastructure to support it and it will change and damage this area irreparably. The level of growth envisaged means attracting businesses to relocate here. As this is an area where there is little or no unemployment, this also means that employees come into the area with the result that more housing has to be built. More and more land is lost to development and the district becomes more and more urbanised. The target of doubling the level of economic output over 25 years is far too high. The area is attractive because Cambridge is a historic city surrounded by a rural landscape.

Business locations should not adversely impact residential areas eg visually, adding to traffic problems etc. Businesses should be located near public transport. It is a myth than locating businesses in villages and near housing developments will mean that employees will live close to their work and the need for travel will be reduced. People no longer have jobs for life but change jobs a number of times during their working lives. For a variety of reasons, they do not move house each time they change job but choose to commute instead.

Building new visitor accommodation in rural areas does not fit well with the aspirations on climate change since it will encourage visitors to arrive by and use cars.

Not at all important

We do not agree that the number of homes planned should be above the minimum required. Such large numbers of new houses would mean concreting over significant areas of green field land with the loss of rural landscape which is a valued feature of this area. The level of economic growth should be such that the character of our area – a historic city set within a largely rural area – can be maintained. There is virtually no unemployment in this area with the result that the significant amount of potential economic growth envisaged just adds to the need to build large number of houses and urbanise rural areas.