Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Please find attached comments from the Newtown Forum which represents 10 residents associations in the station area of Cambridge City. The website would not allow me to complete the official form so pleased find our submission below. This is based on the experience of residents who have lived in or through many new developments in the City. I appreciate that the response is lengthy but we would appreciate a response to the many valid comments we have made and how they will be responded to. Thank you Response TO CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN FROM NEWTOWN FORUM RESIDENTS’ VIEWS. Newtown is a historic area close to the centre of Cambridge. It has grown as a mixed community, embracing both commercial and residential property, with a strong community spirit. A wide mixture of housing types includes two iconic modern developments – Highsett and Accordia – social housing, and a harmonious mixture of 19th/early 20th - century homes of various sizes, alongside some big new residential and office developments. The University botanic gardens are a unique asset at the heart of the area. The robust community framework faces a number of challenges; - the impact of new developments, some of them very large, bringing more people to the area and generating increasing movements of people and vehicles - traffic volumes generating pollution, noise, and damage to infrastructure and properties - social changes, notably an ageing population, and the growth of tourism and short-term lettings. Against this background; 1. An essential starting point for the Plan is to collect evidence about the social and environmental impact of the building that has already happened or is committed, to help understand the possible future impacts of any extra building beyond what is already committed under the current Plan. This process of evidence-gathering must engage all interested parties, including residents’ groups. 2. In the light of the evidence collected in this process, the Plan should define the essential social and environmental aims to be achieved, as the immovable constraints within which it will apply. Only when this has been done should the process turn to proposals for any new building. 3. Plans for new housing should reflect the needs of a mixed community – not just new workers - and promote integration (particularly of older people and a range of income groups) – eg through a mix of tenures and housing types which avoids ghettoisation. 4. Any new office developments should be permitted only if a real need can be demonstrated. Strong planning conditions should be imposed that require developers to be good neighbours – eg improving local infrastructure, providing social resources, limiting the use of motor transport, funding improvements for cyclists and walkers in the neighbourhood, and moderating impacts in the build phase. 5. No major development should be permitted unless the developer can show that it has done a rigorous stakeholder analysis and has engaged with all identified local interests before submitting a planning application. To aid transparency, all discussions, formal or informal, between Councillors/ Officers and developers about planning proposals should be recorded on the City Council’s website. All major developments should be overseen by consultative groups involving local interests as soon as planning permission is granted. 6. Plans should recognise the need to maintain and improve useful open spaces, and create new ones, with clear plans to maintain them. 7. New office developments should provide vehicle parking spaces only for disabled workers. Much of the new developments are owned by foreign investors and is not used to house local residents there do not seem to be proper controls over the use of these properties for air b and b. In CB1 properties plus car parking spaces have been sold to foreign investors who are not using the car parking spaces while social housing on the same site have no access to parking at all, but can see many spare unused spaces. The Local Plan should provide policies for enhancing and maintaining Conservation Areas. Historic buildings should be retained where possible and there should be no adverse impact on the setting and character of surrounding buildings, open spaces or other features, by any development. The character and proportions of buildings should be respected and any changes proposed should not cause any loss of amenity. The Local Plan should provide more stringent requirements for the historic areas of Cambridge to preserve historic buildings and the historic character of areas close to and part of the city centre. Open areas, trees and garden spaces should be retained and protected, especially in densely built historic areas. New office buildings should be carefully regulated in city centre residential areas - eg near to the station and surrounding streets. Blocks should not dominate the skyline or environment. To ensure more sustainable development it would be more appropriate to support mixed development and use vacant office spaces. In all cases of development - adequate infrastructure must be a requirement. Developers must be required to provide facilities, open space and adequate infrastructure and these should be enforced. If there is adequate evidence provided for further development in the region - the preferred option would be to distribute this across the region and encourage sustainable / mixed development with adequate sustainable infrastructure. Traffic plans should be an integral part of the Local Plan. Increasing traffic congestion is a key concern for city residents. Public transport must be adequately addressed providing appropriate infrastructure to the city centre and across the region. The Local Plan should provide adequate guidance for handling increasing tourists - eg bus parking, city centre crowd management etc. The city centre is a valuable historic site and locations such as the market square should be included in the Local Plan. Some sites could be considered to provide leisure facilities such as a sports or arts centre. Community facilities that would benefit the wider local population as well as visitors would be beneficial. From current and previous planning decisions there is concern from residents about the lack of vision and what appears to be a piecemeal and growth-driven interest-led approach to development. It is vital that the Local Plan is coherent and has a unified strategy acknowledging the need to address biodiversity and climate emergencies. These have now been recognised in Council policies, but plans seem to be going ahead which pay only lip service to them. Given that unlimited growth has detrimental effects of increased inequality and un-sustainability and causes adverse outcomes on the character of the city, it is unclear why this is the only option being considered in the consultations. The people most affected by problems caused by growth are the present residents who are being consulted on these problems but not on the cause. There appears to be no investigation being offered to consider limiting growth in the future and this possibility, together with considering other options for development models must be part of the Local Plan. The National Infrastructure Commissions 4 design principals to be addressed when considering new developments stress the importance of human scale, and improving the life for people who live and work nearby, as well as providing a sense of identity for community, and indeed supporting the natural and built environment and enriching the ecosystems. Further densification of Cambridge runs entirely counter to these valid and indeed valuable principles. Schemes such as Marmalade (square?) need to be replicated, where children and indeed all generations can thrive. Air quality in Cambridge is now at such a polluted level , when increasingly there is incontrovertible evidence on the impact of pollution such as by the station or in Brooklands Avenue etc causing stunted growth, with links to lung cancer, triggering cardiac arrest, stroke and asthma. Further densification of Cambridge should not be considered under any circumstances, as future generations will wonder how we managed to spoil and squander the town in full knowledge of the damage aesthetically and to well being to those who live and work in the place'. There is a concern of how this feedback will be used to inform future planning of the City and how these decisions will be communicated back to ourselves as residents.

No uploaded files for public display