Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

There is no mention of substantial capital carbon costs that will arise in connection with the level of development required to double the size of the local economy within 25 years. This frankly undermines the credibility of a Plan that it is claimed will be sustainable.

The alternatives of planning for zero growth overall or limiting growth are not put for consideration in this consultation. Surely a climate change strategy should consider these alternatives? It is all very well to suggest measures that might be taken, but how do you ensure developers concerned with maintaining if not maximising profit margins to adopt them? Are there sufficient powers to compel them? How can the Local Plan bring about the retrofitting of existing homes or business premises? Can you afford to persuade them, i.e. give them money to do this, or will you compel them? If compulsion is on the agenda, what of home owners who do not have the means to retrofit their homes, ditto businesses?

Ensuring food security and the adaptation of agriculture and food growing to our changing climate is a noble aim, but most major developments that receive approval seem to involve the loss of agricultural land, much of it the best and most versatile land the UK has. Emphasising that the local economy has to double in size within a generation suggests that this aim will inevitably be compromised. Perhaps the brake rather than the accelerator needs to be applied?

The introduction to this question considerably understates the parlous condition of our chalkland rivers and streams. The Plan should ensure that major developments, which will have huge water usage requirements and sewage treatment issues, are not sited in areas of water stress or where the delicate ecology around chalk streams will be adversely impacted. Reports that water may need to be piped in from other parts of the country, or that rationing may need to be introduced, if accurate, suggest that the rate of development needs to be carefully monitored so that developers pay for mass water transport systems and for measures to retrofit homes. It would be unjust to expect residents to pay for what developers and expanding businesses have brought about.

There seems to be no recognition that large-scale developments are incompatible with preservation of the natural environment. This basically needs to be left alone or sensitively improved. Wildlife needs wildernesses., not planned parklands primarily designed around visitors, their dogs, runners, and cyclists. People and wildlife are generally not a good mix.

Net biodiversity gain sounds good in theory, but is more of a soundbite than a policy carrying any conviction. Green roofs are invariably mentioned as an apparent positive element of development, but in an area of extremely low summer rainfall they are unlikely to thrive. This feels like paying lip service to the environment, whilst supporting the development of large commercial sites employing hundreds of people, most of whom will drive to work by car.

Yes, strongly agree

No answer given

Truly affordable housing, i.e. social housing is vital. The current definition of affordable housing does not deliver enough housing that people on modest incomes can afford. Services, including cultural facilities, have been disappearing over the last decade or so, and it is far from clear how the Local Plan could reinstate what has gone, let alone add to them.

Attempts by neighbouring Parishes to shape the expansion of the Wellcome Genome Campus were overridden by Officials and District Councillors. Unless the GCP is prepared to side with local opinion on major planning proposals there appears to be little prospect of shaping them via the Local Plan.

There is an element in the final sentence of the preamble to this question that reads as if the creation of corporate settlements might be considered, where residents’ lives may in large part be dependent on their employer. This is not an option that should be considered.