Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Involving communities and stakeholders in developing the plan is key yet most challenging. Armies of developers and special interest groups are standing by to convince the planners that massive amounts of development are needed to reduce inequality, improve health and well-being, or provide accommodation for those drawn in by the plethora of jobs that will be created in this vibrant region. Small wonder that many of those who live here, their children who want to raise families here or those who want to downsize so as to continue living here despite lower incomes in retirement or after personal loss. The loudest voices are often least reliable in this respect; truly representative Parish Councils can be invaluable (and should be formed in the City).

Question 2: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible: Q2 comments: 2 A key challenge going forward is accepting some forms of inequality in the greater interest of the many. Housing needs to be cheaper to “buy” and “operate” which inevitably means smaller, better-insulated, higher-density and closer to places of work (this latter distance can be dramatically affected if we embrace technology, allowing virtual distances to supplant physical distances – an argument NOT to invest in new transport systems that are so costly and disruptive – make the most of what we have); yet there will always be those who can afford more/better – accept it as part of our diverse society. a. Forget strategic new towns and large developments that only really satisfy “wealthy incomers”; do add modest high-density developments to edge-of village locations in a modified Rural Exception Site policy in which up to 100 well-designed compact 1 or 2 bed modular homes equipped with super-broadband and served by a frequent electric community transport service are added to all but the smallest of our villages. b. Complementary to the above, add multi-purpose business/education/leisure/medical centres to each village accepting “100 small homes” to allow te conferencing and co-working necessary to re-vitalise many of our villages for the 21st Century.

No uploaded files for public display

Question 3: Please submit any sites for green space and wildlife habitats you wish to suggest for consideration through the local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q3 comments: Arguably, Cambridge City and District is already over-provided with green spaces, although more could be done to link them together for the wildlife. In this region, a key consideration should be how to use these spaces to provide better flood protection ponds and swales in this flat land in which excess surface water finds difficulty following a safe route to rivers like the Ouse This may involve sterilising much under-productive County land for the purpose.

No uploaded files for public display

Nothing chosen

Forward planning is difficult; linear extrapolation to 2040 is too long, yet the timescale needs to be longer and the plan needs to be robust in the face of unexpected pressures. Climate change may be with us, but we are already learning that many of the predictions are misleading, both in terms of likely progression and society’s ability to counter the threats. A global pandemic could be next, whether a viral consequence of poor food hygiene in a faraway place, or bacterial diseases rendered untreatable as a result of acquired resistance – even here man’s technological ingenuity is already finding potential solutions. I don’t see any realistic assessment of threats along each of the PESTLE axes, any one of which could destroy any linear “business as usual” thinking, especially in our panicky work of fake news. 2050 would be better (a generation) but needs scenario-based approach.

Nothing chosen

So far, only narrow thinking has been applied and many of the flaws in the adopted Local Plans ignored. Repeating those flaws wold be tragic with the wrong number and type of homes built in the wrong places, increasing the need for personal transport and forcing exotic and unaffordable transport schemes to be developed to join them up. People do not choose to travel to work for average wages; they have to in order to support their families and they will reduce costs by using diesel-engined cars and burning logs. The only affordable transformational technology is telecommunications; which does have the potential top reduce he need for travel.

Nothing chosen

The big themes are misleading in a plan of this type. Homes, infrastructure and jobs are the keys without which the rest are nice-to-have: a. Everyone knows that the consequences of climate change are important and that we should try to reduce the causes; however we know that we are fortunate, thanks to VerMuyden and today’s EA and IDBs, not to be in the front line of those affected, unlike Australis, Bangladesh or low-lying South Pacific islands; we also know the unintended negative consequences of other past efforts like the rush to diesel or wood-burning stoves – should we kill people now or the earth later? There is also a helplessness with China, Germany and US continuing to pollute at an enormous rate and an irrational antipathy to the use of carbon-free nuclear power. b. The earth and many of its creatures is a resilient place; nature left to its own devices often heals itself – interference can hinder. c. Safety nets for well-being and social inclusion are difficult and expensive to implement yet there are technology tools that can help significantly if our care-workers were as open to its use as in other countries; this may be a consequence of reliance on low-skilled low-cost, often imported, labour. Use of graduate staff combined with more efficient deployment may have answers. Just adding cash will not resolve it; better-designed homes will help. d. Great places often turn out to increase social division and inequality – this one is hard to justify beyond the educated elite.

No choices made

Question 7: How do you think we should prioritise these big themes? Q7 Comment: Prioritisation implies allocation of resources implies allocation of public funds. a. Improvements to well-being and social inclusion are probably the priority, especially as failure leads to deprivation and crime, perhaps worse. b. Those improvements do need to be carbon-reducing by provision of compact housing, physically or virtually close to education and jobs. c. The others will probably take care of themselves.

Helping the poorest to use less carbon in their daily lives will have a disproportionate benefit in UK.

Other ways to reduce our impact on the climate include: a. Helping the educated appreciate societal benefits from projects like energy from waste or use of nuclear power to reduce pollution and generate carbon-free energy. b. Helping tradespeople upskill and improve working practices

Nothing chosen

New developments are relatively climate-friendly provided we pay proper attention in planning conditions / engforcement to the design, control and long-term maintenance of surface-water management; improvements to the energy sources and insulation of older stock would have a much bigger payback in carbon reduction.