Join Us
Donate
Members

Cambridge Past, Present & Future Planning

Our work influencing the planning and development of greater Cambridge. For our latest news follow our planning and heritage twitter feed cppf_pc 

Our Vision
Local Plan
Greater Transport
Our Vision
Local Plan
Greater Transport

Planning Watchdog

We monitor and review planning policies and planning applications. We respond when we are concerned about their impact on the environment, heritage, landscape and quality of life. Each year we respond to over 50 applications, plans or proposals.

We do not have sufficient resources to submit written responses to all the development proposals that we review, and so we do not usually respond when we have no major concerns or significant comments to make about them.

Click on the links below to read some of our responses, the most recent is at the top.

Ways to Support Us

2024 Responses

2023 Responses

  • Application for redevelopment of NIAB site with laboratory/office campus.  We consider that the application is missing a heritage statement considering the impact on the draft Howes Place Conservation Area.
  • Application for extension over commercial premises to provide residential flats at School Hill Histon.  We consider that the development of a second and third floor is not in character with the Conservation Area.
  • Consultation on Historic England Advice Note on Climate Change and Building Adaptation.  We wish to see greater clarity on balancing heritage and public benefit.
  • Appeal against refusal for signs to shop front.  We support the City Council in their refusal of these signs and consider that they are detrimental to the historic buildings and conservation area.
  • Application for 12 dwellings at Ditton Walk.  We support the application but wish to see boundary treatment which does not encourage graffiti.
  • Revised plans for application for demolition and alterations to the Grafton Centre. We consider that revisions to make the proposal appear less bulky are not significant enough to remove the impact on the Cambridge skyline.
  • Application for extensions to 173 Huntingdon Road.  We have requested additional information to ensure that the impact of the development can be properly assessed on this Building of Local Interest.
  • Appeal against refusal of 18m 4G monopole on Barton Road.  We support the City Council in their refusal of this application and agree with their assessment of its detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Building.
  • Consultation of Statement of Community Involvement. We wish to encourage ways in which pre-application communication between applicant, officer and community group can be improved.
  • Consultation on Conservation Area Appraisals. We welcome and support the appraisal for Conduit Head and the appraisal and proposed designation for Howes Place.
  • Application for redevelopment of the Beehive Centre.  We strongly object to the application because it is proposing unnecessary strategic scale employment within a residential suburb, with inadequate access by public transport and massive buildings dominating the Conservation Area and historic skyline.
  • Consultation on redevelopment of Westbrook Centre.  We are concerned about the impact of the development on the adjacent Conservation Area.
  • Consultation by Department for Levelling Up on Permitted Development Rights.  Our comments request that permitted development or prior approvals should not apply within heritage assets, and that landscape character and Green Belt are taken into account. We also comment on how planning can be improved to help deliver nature-based developments.  
  • Application for 12 uplighters with purple wash in Petty Cury.  We consider that the coloured lights and harm the character and setting of the conservation area and adjoining listed buildings.
  • Application for illuminated signs in Petty Cury.  We object to the number and size of these signs in the conservation area and adjacent listed buildings.
  • Application for change of use of barn to drive thru blood testing unit, Magog Court, Great Shelford.  We object to the use of this building which was only allowed because it was for agricultural purposes and it introduces a use incompatible with its Green Belt location and intrusive in the landscape.
  • Application for demolition and alterations to the Grafton Centre.  We object to the impact this development will have on the Cambridge skyline.
  • Application to redevelopment 3 properties to post graduate student accommodation. We consider that a modified proposal retaining two rather than one of the four villas would be more sympathetic to the Conservation Area.
  • Consultation on proposals to redevelop the Beehive Centre, Coldhams Lane. We have reiterated our concerns of the suitability of the site for employment and preference for a mixed scheme including residential. We also object to the scale and height of the buildings and the lack of open green space.
  • Consultation on Land adjacent Netherhall Farm.  We have commented on landscaping to minimise the impact on views from the Gog Magog Hills.
  • Consultation on Greenway through Grantchester.  We support much of the proposal but wish to see the off-road path alongside Grantchester Road to be solely on the west side.
  • Application for Cycle Parking at Cambridge South Station.  We wish to see a phased installation of cycle parking to minimise impact on Hobson’s Park.
  • Consultation on Cycling Plus Hills Road.  We are supportive of improvements which make cycling and walking safer and more attractive and wish to ensure that the improvements are sympathetic to the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.
  • Consultation on Coldham’s Lakes.  We are concerned that the proposal won’t deliver the environmental and recreational enhancements.

    Consultation on redevelopment of Westbrook Centre. Ideally we’d like to see refurbishment of the buildings but if not, new buildings must not overshadow the adjoining houses or detrimentally impact the Conservation Area.

  • Consultation on new laboratories at 440 Cambridge Science Park.  We wish to ensure that the new building does not negatively impact the adjoining park.
  • Planning application for change of use and alterations to 98 Regent Street. We raise concerns about the impact of the works to the rear elevation on the Conservation Area.
  • Planning application for replacement R&D building at Vitrum Building Cowley Road.  We object to the height, mass and bulk of this building on the edge of the city.
  • Scoping Opinion for commercial development and landscape/ecological improvements on land south of Coldhams Lane (Coldhams Lakes).  We wish to ensure that the application properly accesses the ecology and the visual impact.
  • Application for commercial development at Devonshire Quarter. We do not consider that the car park can be converted into a safe and attractive cycle park in the future.
  • Application for 200 unit Retirement Community at Comberton.  We do not consider there are any special circumstances to allow this development in the Green Belt.
  • Consultation on redevelopment of 3 sites at Sidney Street/Hobson Street Cambridge.  We object to the loss of the cinema facade and the impact of the wider development on the City Centre Conservation Area.
  • Application for redevelopment of Melbourn Science Park.  We are concerned about the impact of the height and massing of the buildings on the landscape edge and entrance to the village.
  • Application for redevelopment with two dwellings at 45 Highworth Ave, Cambridge.  We consider that this development in the rear garden and garage/office facing the road is out of character with the area.
  • Application for bridges across the A1301 at Genome Campus, Hinxton.  We object to the construction of two large bridges which will impact the rural character of the village. 
  • Application of Research and Development laboratories, Merlin Place, 460 Milton Road, Cambridge.  We object to the mass and bulk of the proposed building and the visual impact it will have on Milton Road, a gateway into Cambridge.
  • Application for 2-storey rear extension to Ivy Dene, Mill Way, Grantchester. We raised concerns about the impact of the extension of the form of this listed building.
  • Consultation on St Ives Greenway Spurs.  We support the improvements to these routes and wish to make sure that surface colour, lighting etc respects rural location and loss of trees is minimised.
  • Consultation on Swaffham and Bottisham Greenway. We support the provision of these greenways but we wish to make sure that the heritage of the villages and the landscape of the Commons is protected.
  • Consultation on the Waterbeach to Cambridge Busway and new Park and Ride at Waterbeach.  We have asked the GCP to consider options which reduce the impact of development on the landscape, ecology, heritage and green belt.
  • Consultation for a new car park in the countryside and changes to Newmarket Road (Cambridge Eastern Access). We are concerned about the environmental damage and we object to the proposals put forward for the car park and to the verge to the west of Airport Way roundabout.
  • Application for multi-functional hub incorporating advertising on Fitzroy Street. We have objected to this application because it introduces additional street clutter and harms the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
  • Application for replacement dwelling at 19 High Street, Grantchester. We are concerned about the impact of this proposed highly contemporary dwelling on the conservation area.
  • Application for rear extension to 29 Maid’s Causeway.  We are concerned about the impact this extension will have on the Conservation Area.
  • Application for felling of trees at Matthew’s Centre. We object to the felling of these protected trees as it would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.
  • Consultation on draft Regional Water Resources Plan. We support the work of the Plan which is considered to be a good foundation for the preparation of Water Management Plans.
  • Application for haul road and compound associated with development of Eddeva Park, Babraham Road, Cambridge. We object to the impact of this development on the permanence of the Green Belt and the extensive loss of hedgerow.
  • Application for 246 dwellings on land south of Pond, Cambourne Business Park. We support the provision of a single large park but object to its location within the centre of the site, without links to other green spaces.
  • Application for solar farm between A14 and A11 Little Wilbraham.  We object to the principle of the development of a solar farm in the Green Belt.
  • Application for scoping opinion for redevelopment of Beehive Centre, Coldhams Lane.  We have requested that the documents supporting the planning application take into account the full height of the buildings, the pedestrian route from the Railway Station, sustainability and ecological and landscape improvements. 

2022 Responses

  • Consultation by GCP on signage of Greenways. We responded to the survey saying that an understanding of who the signage and wayfinding is aimed at and for what type of journey will guide its design.
  • Application for three new dwellings on Ely Road (A10) Landbeach.  We object to this application because it involves new dwellings in the Green Belt. 

2021 Responses

  • Application for a new commercial building including opening Coldham’s Lakes in Cambridge for public use. In principle we support better use of the lakes but we have concerns about the resources required to achieve this. We raise an objection because the commercial building is on a wildlife site, the value of which has not been adequately recognised by the developer.
  • Application to expand Babraham Road Park & Ride, Cambridge. We object to this application from Greater Cambridge Partnership on two points of principle. Firstly, the application is to provide car parking spaces rather than to function as a Park & Ride and, secondly, the proposals for achieving biodiversity net gain do not align with the landowner’s (County Council) stated commitments to improve biodiversity.
  • Consultation to convert Dernford reservoir (Stapleford) and surrounding area into a caravan and water park. We question whether a nature park might be more appropriate and highlight some of the impacts that the proposals could have on biodiversity.
  • Application to build a new business park on the edge of the green belt near Fulbourn. We object to this application because the heights and design mean it will cause harm to views from the Gog Magog Hills.
  • Response to future plans for three buildings at Sidney Street in central Cambridge.
  • Application to demolish a grand Victorian house (formerly the Felix Hotel) in Cambridge. We object to this application because the house is a local heritage asset and in perfectly useable condition.
  • Our response to proposals for an Environmental Impact Assessment for a development next to Coldham’s Lakes in Cambridge.
  • Proposals by government for changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and a new National Model Design Code. We are supportive of some of the proposals but strongly object to the proposed changes to Article 4 Directions which would take decisions on the planning our area out of local hands.
  • Application for redevelopment of car park at Cambridge Station. We object to this application because the massing and design of the new car park and aparthotel will have a negative impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and the bland architectural style lacks the distinctiveness and character that we would want to see in such a prominent location as part of a welcome to a world class city.
  • Application to install a telecommunications mast on Jesus Green, Cambridge. We objected to this application to move a telecoms mast from the roof of Park Street Car Park into the middle of Jesus Green, which is one of the most significant public open spaces in the city and is enjoyed by 100,000s of people every year. The proposed location is very visible and will negatively impact on the appearance and enjoyment of the park and also on the Conservation Area.
  • Application for student flats on St Matthew’s Piece. We strongly object to this application as it is contrary to local planning policy and the height and massing of the student flats would result in harm to the Conservation Area and the amenity of the local park. We also raise concerns about the impact on the magnificent trees and also the danger that they might pose. We also object in principle to building on land that was originally given to the people of Cambridge as open space.
  • An application to demolish Lockton House (offices) and build new offices. We object to the demolition of a perfectly sound building, which we believe would be much better converted into flats, thus saving the carbon embedded in the building and also providing much needed housing.

2020 Responses

  • Proposals for a new Cambridge South train station. Our response to a public consultation by Network Rail on proposals for station access, construction compounds and indicative designs. We support the principle of a new station and the location selected. We are pleased with principles for landscape and biodiversity mitigation but encourage Network Rail to appoint a quality architectural practice.
  • Application to build a new police station in the green belt near Milton. We objected to this planning application by the constabulary because it is contrary to planning policy: It is in the green belt, there is no evidence that there will be a gain in biodiversity, the development is predicated on car travel and there is excessive car parking and unsympathetic high security landscaping.
  • Proposals for a radical reform of the planning system. Our response to a public consultation by the government for reforms to the planning system in England. We have serious concerns about these reforms because instead of solving the housing crisis they will result in a less democratic system, with less community involvement and therefore less desirable outcomes. We are concerned about the capacity of community groups to engage in a more intense Local Plan process and of the resources available for already over-stretched planning departments – and that the term “Protected areas” is misleading because they are not actually protected!
  • Plans for a new urban centre in north east Cambridge. Our response to a public consultation by City and South Cambs Councils on a draft Area Action Plan to create a significant high density development. We do not have confidence that the market can deliver the welcome aspirations for this development and we stress the need to establish a local delivery vehicle to achieve the vision. We raise concerns about the lack of a large green space, building heights and impacts on views, the overall density proposed and the overly ambitious car reduction targets for the science park. The Action Plan was developed prior to Covid-19 and we question whether some of the assumptions used are now valid.
  • Proposals to relocate Cambridge Sewage Works. Our response to a public consultation by Anglia Water to relocate the works into the green belt to enable the creation of a new urban district in north east Cambridge. We highlight the need to consider the impact on the green belt, landscape and ecology and of the opportunity to create a state-of-the art environmental recycling centre.
  • 14-17 Regent’s Terrace (Parker’s Piece), Cambridge. We object to an application for a new block of flats which we consider to be out of character and well short of the quality that should be acceptable for a prominent location next to one of the city’s main green spaces and in a Conservation Area.
  • Conversion of offices to flats in northwest Cambridge. This is one of the worst development proposals we have ever seen and we have objected to the conversion of the poor quality 1960s office/laboratory extension to the NIAB building into 95 undersized flats, all of which fail to meet minimum standards in almost every respect.
  • 29 High Street, Chesterton. We objected to an application to demolish buildings and build new ones in a Cambridge Conservation Area.
  • Stapleford Retirement village. We object to an application to build a retirement village on green belt countryside because it is a speculative proposal that is not in the Local Plan and is contrary to national and local planning policy. We also raise concerns about the viability of the proposed countryside park that is part of this application.
  • East Cambridge future transport. Our response to a public consultation by the Greater Cambridge Partnership about improving transport on the eastern side of the city. We stress the importance of green corridors and Wilbraham Fen SSSI and the need to protect them. We highlight the opportunities presented by the under-used rail line.
  • Cambridge-Waterbeach future transport. Our response to a public consultation by the Greater Cambridge Partnership about improving transport between Cambridge and Waterbeach. We stress the importance of the wildlife corridor alongside the River Cam and the need to protect this. We highlight that there are so many proposals that they are competing with each, potentially wasting public funds and that their cumulative impact on the green belt countryside would be significant.
  • Park & Ride car park between Trumpington and Hauxton. We object because this is the wrong scheme in the wrong place. It is a short-term solution that will create a long-term impact. It will result in building over the green belt countryside in order to create a giant car park and associated roads and other intrusive infrastructure. Even the council admits that “it is estimated the use of the Travel Hub would result in an increase of carbon emissions over the next 60 years.” We note that it will be at least 15 years before new trees/hedges grow sufficiently to mitigate the visual impacts of this scheme on the landscape.
  • Cambridge Metro policy. Our response to a public consultation by the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority on a new policy for a future Cambridge Metro. We raised concerns about whether the huge costs of such a scheme can ever be met and the lack of a Plan B if that proves to be the case. We also highlight that the environmental aspects of the proposed policy should be significantly improved.
  • A10 Corridor Transport/Road Dualling. Our response to a public consultation by the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority on their ideas for reducing journey times on the A10 between Cambridge and Ely. We feel that building new roads during a climate and biodiversity emergency is not the right solution and instead we would like to see investment in cycling, public transport and junction improvements.
  • Kings Road, Hardwick. We object in principle to a proposal to demolish farm barns and build an office and car park because the development is in the green belt, in a Conservation Area and outside the Village Development Framework.
  • Lilac Court, Cambridge. We raise a number of concerns about plans to build new houses in a residential area, including the impact on trees, over-development, loss of cycle parking and impact on the amenity of residents.
  • St Matthew’s Piece, Cambridge. We object in principle to a proposal put forward by Federated Hermes to construct a block of student flats adjacent to a Cambridge park. In our view the best scenario for the long-term future of St Matthew’s Piece is to remove the current building when it reaches the end of its life and expand the park into a green square in order to better serve the community. We also raise concerns about the design of the flats.
  • Netherhall Farm GB1, Wort’s Causeway. We raise a number of concerns and objections to proposals to build 200 new homes on former greenbelt land on the south side of Cambridge. Including impacts on views, the landscape and nature and also the failure to develop a scheme that will create a new community rather than a suburban extension.
  • Conversion of Anstey Hall, Trumpington, into residential home and 87 new flats. Anstey Hall is a significant building and grounds, whilst we are not opposed in principle to the proposals put forward, this application clearly needs further work before it could be approved. We note several objections from council officers due to inadequate information. There is no consideration of the ecological impacts. We recommend that it is withdrawn in order for further work to be carried out and to re-think some of the designs.
  • Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) Consultation seeking the views on whether a CAM was needed and on initial proposals for underground sections in Cambridge. We raised concerns about whether the huge costs of such a scheme can ever be met and the lack of a Plan B if that proves to be the case. The consultation is lacking sufficient information to provide informed responses. We raise concerns about this scheme leading to higher levels of development and the impact of the CAM itself on heritage, environment and communities.
  • Erection of 6 flats to the rear of The Seven Stars Public House, Newmarket Road, Cambridge. We commented on the outline application to erect 6 studio flats on a scrap of land at the rear of The Seven Stars Public House.  The proposed dwellings are just 13.2sqm in size falling far below the government standard of 37sqm for a 1 bedroom flat.  We suggested that the Council should not be supporting the over development of scraps of land to provide inadequate housing. 
  • Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Conversation. This consultation by Cambridge and South Cambs Councils posed 50 questions to identify the main issues and opportunities that a new Local Plan will need to address. This was not a small task and took us two months to consider. Our responses cover the full breadth of the planning spectrum: levels of growth, spatial patterns of development, the environment, heritage, place making and well-being. In our response we challenge the high levels of growth suggested and we outline a proposal for a Cambridge Landscapes Nature Recovery Network as a solution for the Local Plan to tackle the biodiversity emergency and improve well-being. We have also published a series of blogs about some of the issues raised by the Local Plan consultation.  
  • South Cambridge Station Consultation by Network Rail. In principle we support the new station and our main concerns are to ensure that the new station does not negatively impact the adjacent country park, its wildlife and users and that any impacts on Nine Wells Nature Reserve, Hobson’s Brook and an ancient monument are minimised. Our secondary concern is that the new station should essentially be “car free” and does not become a magnet for London commuters’ cars. Therefore it must be supported by excellent walking, cycling and public transport links. 
  • Downing Street Junction Consultation. We commented on the proposed changes to the busy Downing Street Junction in Cambridge by recommending that due care and consideration is given to street signage, street furniture and road markings to respect the conservation area, adjacent listed buildings and positive street views.
  • Fernleigh Farm Teversham redevelopment proposals.  The proposals are for redevelopment of the site to expand current use.  In principle we do not object to this proposal but have commented on two areas of concern: transport, and the need to upgrade the cycle route that accesses the site, and landscaping to enhance the setting and biodiversity of the site.
  • 32 St Andrew’s Street change of use to a public house.  The site was previously occupied by Cambridge Building Society and occupies a prominent site at the corner of St Andrew’s Street and Downing Street.  We have objected to this application on the grounds that it will cause further congestion for pedestrians, deliveries to the site will cause disruption to traffic, cycle and pedestrian routes and it will increase the concentration of public houses and eating establishments in this area. Overall the proposed change appears ill-conceived for such a busy and prominent location and will not contribute positively to the Central Cambridge Conservation Area.

  • Climate Change & Environmental Strategy (DRAFT) of Cambridgeshire County Council. We welcome this strategy from the County Council and suggest some ways that their strategy could be improved. In particular we highlight the need to include land owned by the County Council that it wishes to develop through its property company This Land. These developments provide an opportunity to be exemplars of the County Council’s Climate Change & Environment Strategy by building housing to the highest carbon neutral standards, by achieving high levels of net-biodiversity gain and providing green infrastructure, climate mitigation through tree planting and flood mitigation. They should also be exemplars of housing design which support cycling, walking and public transport. Such developments would provide leadership and set hight standards for the private sector to follow. We would like to see a clear statement in this document that this is its aspiration for This Land and the development of County Council land.
  • Hill Trees, Babraham Road an application for change of use from public house car park to car sales. This is the former public house on the hill between Babraham Road roundabout at Great Shelford and the MaGog Hills. It has not been a public house for almost 20 years and yet the application is to simply change the use from a pub car park to a lot for car sales. We have serious concerns about the lack of sufficient information included in the application as well as the impact both to biodiversity and visually. 
  • Barnwell Junction House- new fencing proposal immediately adjacent to the Cambridge Leper Chapel. We feel that security fencing is inappropriate given its context and proximity to the Grade I listed Chapel.
  • Meadows and Buchan area redevelopment in Arbury application for redevelopment of the existing community centre and open space provision, including new social housing. Application follows two public consultations, both of which we responded to. Concerns include quantum of development, heights of buildings, loss of protected open space and lack of sufficient parking plans. 
  • Emmanuel College, 1 Park Terrace redevelopment of site including new building on Park Terrace adjacent to listed buildings, within conservation area and across from Parker’s Piece. Sensitive location and proposal poor quality design for new build and blocks Furness Lodge views. 
  • Royston to Granta Park transport study public consultation our response to the initial and basic consultation from Granta Park to Royston looking at the transport and traffic corridor. We highlight need to consider potential develop along the A1301 as well as the area around Bassingbourn and ask to include environmental issues and biodiversity. 
  • 104-112 Hills Road 2nd public consultation second round of public consultation on the redevelopment of 104-112 Hills Road. The Flying Pub has been apparently saved, but what be built around it? We comment on concerns about heights and density within the context, especially against the backdrop of the designated Botanical Gardens. 

2019 Responses

  • Great Shelford Parochial Charities provision of 21 Almshouses this is a challenging application. The site is within the green belt and outside the village framework- which go against our development principles. However, the proposal is for 21 new homes for local residents at less than market rates, which is laudable. 
  • Proposal for a new Retirement Village in Stapleford we attended the public consultation for a new retirement village in Stapleford within the green belt, outside the village framework and possibly adjacent to the proposed new guided bus from Haverhill to Cambridge. We have highlighted numerous concerns. 
  • Rupert Brooke pub, Grantchester the pub has built a new low wall to create an outside garden area, but it does not accord with the approved plans in height or materials. We have raised this concern due to its visual impact on the setting and character of the conservation area. 
  • Conversion of Bolton’s Warehouse a building that our Heritage Watch group put forward and got designated as a Building of Local Interest (BLI). Proposal to convert from business space to single residence. Our main concern is for the retention of the building and its historic fabric. Read how we feel turning it into a single residential dwelling might actually be positive for the building and its setting. 
  • Barrington Cement Works EIA a major development at the former cement works in Barrington. We argue that an environmental impact assessment is required. 
  • Carpenters Arms pub, Great Wilbraham our response to the demolition of the existing extension and building a new larger extension. The proposed new extension will have a larger footprint and seek to physically connect the listed outbuilding to the listed pub building. In doing so, it will result in the loss of historic context and relationship of the buildings to each other and the site. In addition, we have serious concerns about the feasibility of the proposed extension in structural terms. 
  • Cambridge South East Busway Consultation Greater Cambridge Partnership consultation on a proposed busway and park/ride between Cambridge and the A11 to the south of the city. We do not support these proposals for numerous reasons, including harm and impact to the open countryside as well as failure to serve the villages the route goes through due to the distance to the stop from the centre of the village. 
  • Netherhall Farm, land north of Worts Causeway EIA Scoping Opinion our response to an application for an Environment Impact Assessment on the proposed development of land north of Wort’s Causeway. There was an application earlier in the year for a Screening Opinion and the Council’s conclusion was that they needed an EIA. However, instead of submitting one, they have asked for another opinion. It is unclear why and we have raised this as suspicious. In addition, the documents fail to include net gain on biodiversity, climate change, etc. 

 

  • 15-16_Emmmanuel_Road, Cambridge our response to the demolition of Buildings of Local Interest, mainly on the grounds of lack of maintenance and neglect. We object to the demolition on these grounds and without any attempt to try and incorporate the existing buildings into the scheme. In addition, we object to the pastiche replacement proposed for such a prominent site – in a Conservation Area and adjacent to numerous heritage assets. 

 

  • Renovating the existing toilet facilities at Silver Street bridge this is an application to upgrade and improve the existing toilet provisions at the Silver Street Bridge in Cambridge. Since the toilets are located within the bridge (except for the disabled toilet) there have been problems with flooding and drainage. This is an opportunity to enhance the facilities and hopefully enhance the street level public realm. 

 

  • GCP Bottisham/Swaffham/Horningsea Greenways public consultation In principle we support the concept of Greenways in order to increase the number of journeys made by cyclists and pedestrians in order to benefit the environment and public health and as a means of reducing traffic congestion. The location and design of these routes must consider their impact on the natural and built environment and on the local landscape – especially if they are to be able to proceed through the planning system. We object to one of the options due to ecological impact.

 

 

  • Public consultation Meadows Centre and Buchan Street recreation grounds redevelopment CambridgePPF responded to the first consultation for redeveloping the recreation ground and community centre at Meadows and Buchan in the Arbury area. This second consultation does show the Council is listening, but we still have concerns about the quantum of development and reduction in amenity to existing residents in an area with lower than average open space. 

 

  • Newbury Farm outline application on GB2 (land south of Wort’s Causeway) We acknowledge the land was removed from the green belt during the last round of local plans so can now be developed upon, however, we are very concerned about the quality of this outline application that only addresses access into the site. CambridgePPF met with the developers for both GB1 and GB2 to encourage them to create a masterplan for both sites to ensure cohesion, cross working and enable the community to understand the totality of development – to date this has not happened. 

 

  • CambridgePPF response to Making Space for People public consultation the City Council held a public consultation on assessing the wider public realm in and around the city centre, including some of Hills Road and Mill Lane. It will inform an SPD – or supplementary planning document – which planning officers will use when assessing applications. We are supportive of this work but we queried the document’s ‘vision’ and challenged the City to be braver in their aspirations and aims. 

 

  • GCP Foxton Travel Hub park and rail public consultation Our response to a public consultation for a 750 space car park adjacent to the Foxton train station. It is unclear if this is to be a park and rail site or if, as we recommend, the GCP could consider a wider scope for the site to include buses, cycles, etc. This may also take the pressure off of a proposed new park and ride at Junction 11 M11. In addition, we query the rationale behind the proposal and challenge the financial case. 

 

 

  • Proposed new Greenway between Cambridge and Royston, serving Sawston and Melbourn In principle we support the concept of Greenways in order to increase the number of journeys made by cyclists and pedestrians in order to benefit the environment and public health and as a means of reducing traffic congestion. The location and design of these routes must consider their impact on the natural and built environment and on the local landscape – especially if they are to be able to proceed through the planning system. We have raised concerns about the overly “centric” nature of some of the proposed routes and the need for Greenways to better connect with employment centres. We are therefore pleased to see two routes come forward that will connect with Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC).

 

  • Cambridegshire & Peterborough Local_Transport_Plan_Consultation In our view the LTP is too focused on large public transport engineering schemes. These schemes will be expensive to deliver and to operate and will have significant impacts on local communities, the environment and heritage. The entire plan for Greater Cambridge hinges on a Cambridge Metro, without any ‘Plan B’.

 

  • Park Street Car Park redevelopment, Cambriddge ref 191159FUL in principle we are supportive of the redevelopment of this site as it is of no architectural or historic significance. However, being located within a Conservation Area and adjacent to numerous listed buildings, we raised some concerns, including the height proposed and amount of underground car parking. 

 

  • Chesterton Mill redevelopment, Cambridge our response to the reworking of the mill buildings off of Frenchs Road. Overall, bringing this jumble of buildings into the 21st century presents a variety of challenges for the architects and developer. We judge this to be a well-considered set of proposals which should breathe new life into this currently run-down complex.

 

  • 104-112 Hills Road, Cambridge comments on the consultation to alter the original planning consent for the area adjacent to the Botanic Gardens and the Mills and Reeve building. One of the main issues is the retention of the Flying Pig Pub, in its current historic building and with its current pub use. In addition, there are opportunities to create an imaginative and creative mixed use site and we suggest touring the area to see what developments have been successful and examples of what not to do. 

 

  • 25 Portugal Place, Cambridge our response to the proposals to make alterations to a listed building within a conservation area. The application is lacking sufficient information to properly assess it and the information it does contain shows a lack of understanding towards working with a historically built structure, its needs and the implications of doing works to it. 

 

  • Whittlesford Parkway Station redevelopment proposal by Greater Cambridge Partnership our response to the initial consultation reviewing significant changes to the Whittlesford Train Station area. We highlighted the two heritage assets within the site and cited that this is an opportunity to preserve, enhance and improve the setting and character of the Duxford Chapel and Red Lion Pub. We are supportive of most of the proposed improvements, however, there are several concerns about the impact to the assets and recommendations on how to address them.

 

  • Response to Lilac Court redevelopment Cherry Hinton residents contacted us to support them in raising concerns about this development. It would result in loss of amenity and play space, the height proposed is imposing and would impact neighbours, etc. There has been a lot of issues with this proposal and many have responded sharing their thoughts, including Cllr Lewis Herbert, leader of the City Council. 

 

  • Netherhall Farm, Wort’s Causeway GB1 our response to a consultation by the developer on their plans for a new housing estate on former Greenbelt land on the south of Cambridge. We object to their plans to build on a meadow and we offered advice on how their plans could be revised in order to improve their development for ecology, landscape and community.

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_Spicers_S-2122-19-FL.pdf the redevelopment of the Spicers site in Sawston, which is considered a brownfield site, is in principle supported. However, there is insufficient information in the application to properly assess it and there are serious concerns about the impact to the adjacent Green Belt, ecology and Scheduled Ancient Monument. There is also a serious flood risk as they propose two below ground levels. 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_Guildhall_lav_windows.pdf the Guildhall in Market Square is a Listed Building and is within a Conservation Area. The proposal is small, but significant, as it seeks to replace original historic glass with modern and insert plastic air vents within the glass to improve the bathrooms within the building. We offer a more historically and sensitive solution to retain the fabric. 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_M11_J11_0719.pdf our response to the GCP proposal to build a new park and ride west of the M11 at Junction 11, which is located in the Green Belt. We raise numerous concerns about the impact to the environment and ecology and raise the issue that the land take has increased significantly compared to the initial proposals. 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_42_Rathmore_Road.pdf our response to an application to raise the ridge height on a house in the middle of a 19th Century terrace where very little has changed over time. This proposal would interrupt the continuous roof line and change the uniformity. The buildings are not listed, nor are they in a conservation area. However, they are undesignated heritage assets and this proposal could result in harm to the visual appearance and local distinctive character. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_48-50_High_St_Chesterton.pdf our response to the proposed works to partially demolish the site and add four- 1 bed flats. We considered it over-development and supported the comments made by the Conservation Team at the City. 

 

 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_Village_Design_Statements.pdf our comments on the various Village Design Statements proposed in several villages in South Cambs. We are very supportive of the principle and hope that the natural environment benefits as well. 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_54-56_High_St_Trumpington.pdf our response regarding the demolition of buildings that are of no architectural or historic interest and its replacement. The principle of replacing the buildings is supported, but the proposed design and materials have been questioned, especially in relation to the adjacent thatched listed building. 

 

  • CambridgePPF_response_Cambourne-Cambridge_Phase_2_consultation.pdf our response to consultation on Phase 2 of Cambourne-Cambridge busway. We have strongly objected to proposals to build a car park on a valuable ecological site on top of one of the few hills in Cambridge. We support those options that are least damaging to ecology and landscape.
  • CPPF_response_former_Ridgeons_Site_April19.pdf our response to a planning application to redevelop the former Ridgeons site in the Romsey area of Cambridge. We were disappointed with the level of affordable housing and the bland nature of the architecture.

2018-19 Responses

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_EIA_Worts_Causeway.pdf our response to whether or not the proposal for 260 homes on former green belt land requires an Environmental Impact Assessment to review and assess the potential for harm from the development.

 

 

 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_to_Hauxton_House_redev.pdf the first application to bring back the mill and its buildings into a new use. The Old Mill House was converted into offices in 1975 from residential. The proposal is to keep it offices, but introduce two new clean lab spaces. 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_Mill_Lane_Pembroke_app_080219.pdf the response is to the first applications for the Old Press Mill Lane redevelopment site (both listed building and planning). Focusing on the South side, this development will increase the size of Pembroke College. It is about heritage, context, listed buildings, conservation areas, transport and more. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_resp_158_homes_land_north_of_Babraham_Road.pdf– an application for 158 homes that will extend the village of Sawston heading towards Babraham. This is included in the recently adopted Local Plan, but it is outside the village framework and within the Green Belt, so we object to it on principle. 

 

 

  • CambridgePPF_response_Waterbeach_SPD_231018.pdf– our response to the Supplementary Planning Document outlining the Council’s expectations for the new town at Waterbeach. Concerns about the timing as applications have already been received, when the SPD should be used to inform them prior to submission. 

 

  • App_development_in_walled_garden_Whittlesford.pdf– this is an application for several new homes within an existing walled garden adjacent to the Listed Church in Whittlesford. Concerns about lack of information over significance of walled garden and impact to setting and context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Consult_on_CPIER.pdf– consultation response to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our vision for Cambridge

The greater Cambridge area has been growing rapidly and this rate of growth is predicted to continue. Change can be both good and bad. Our aim is to influence the type, location and quality of new development so that it is sustainable and does not materially harm the environment, heritage and quality of life. We do not support a dash for growth that will generate long-term harm. 

Cambridge Past, Present & Future has 11 Development Principles that set out our position on the future growth of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire (greater Cambridge). They also provide a framework we will use to assess and comment on local development plans and planning applications:

Ways to Support Us

1. The Environment and limits to growth:

  • CambridgePPF will not support levels of growth it believes to be excessive and which do not enhance the local environment and quality of life.
  • New development should have the prospect of being zero-carbon. This includes consideration of its location and the amount of carbon-producing travel or infrastructure that it might generate. We support moves to achieve high standards for energy efficiency in both the construction of buildings and their subsequent use. We also support initiatives to provide local/micro energy such as solar or ground-source systems.
  • New development must be resilient to the effects of climate change, including being located and designed to cope with high rainfall flood events and droughts.
  • The availability of water must be a key criterion in any development proposal. The overall level of development in greater Cambridge must be achievable without water shortages caused by over-abstraction from the aquifer impacting rivers, wetlands and other natural habitats. Individual developments must achieve the highest possible water efficiency, including grey water recycling.
  • Cambridge should aspire to 50% journeys to work by walk/cycle (comparable with Copenhagen and parts of Netherlands). Therefore, all new development must be located and designed to encourage and enable walking and cycling.

2. Green infrastructure and nature:

  • A growing population will put further pressure on limited existing green spaces. All developments, especially those for housing, should therefore set out how they will contribute to increasing the quantity and quality of green infrastructure in our area. This must include strategic green infrastructure beyond the development site because Cambridgeshire has a shortage of such space. New green infrastructure provision should be based on green infrastructure priorities, such as those identified in the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy or opportunity mapping. These emphasise the need to create a joined-up network of green infrastructure, in particular expanding and linking existing green spaces.
  • We strongly support the beneficial health and other benefits of green and open spaces readily available to the public.
  • New developments should demonstrate how they will contribute to greater biodiversity (at least 10% net biodiversity gain) and contribute towards Cambridgeshire’s vision to double nature by 2050. Development should follow the ecological mitigation hierarchy and avoid harm to priority habitats and species where it is possible to do so.
  • Large developments should be informed by Natural Cambridgeshire’s Developer’s Toolkit.

3. Landscapes, setting and Green Belt:

  • We believe that maintaining the attractiveness of greater Cambridge is essential for the area’s future prosperity and the quality of life of its residents. Allowing Cambridge to expand into a large urban metropolis will harm both its character and competitiveness. The further development of the city should be predicated on keeping Cambridge as a compact city by protecting and enhancing its green setting and keeping its special charm and character.
  • Development should be informed by local landscape assessments and views. In particular, respecting the setting of the historic city and villages.
  • We argue that the Cambridge Green Belt serves an invaluable purpose in protecting the green and historic setting of Cambridge. It should be retained and only considered for development as an exceptional measure of last resort.
  • Because the Green Belt is so close to the main centre of population it should be managed to provide public access to, and enjoyment of, nature and green spaces.
  • The Green Belt should play a role in mitigating the impacts of climate change and development, for example through tree planting, flood relief and public open space.

4. Plan-led development:

  • Development must be led by the Local Plan and also properly planned for, and not be speculative or piecemeal. The Local Plan should enable consideration of the scale of new development, cumulative impacts, the most appropriate locations, provide an opportunity for local communities to influence the development of their areas and enable co-ordination with other plans and initiatives (for example transport plans and the plans of neighbouring areas). Speculative and piecemeal development rarely does.
  • We will seek to influence the planning and development of Greater Cambridge through the local planning process(es).
  • We will not agree with all development proposals included in the Local Plan, but we accept the planning process and will not object “in principle” to proposals that are plan-led.

5. Building density, building heights, efficient use of land and regeneration:

  • We believe that priority should be given to development which maximises the use of sites that have already been built upon. For example, Cambridge has significant areas of car parking which could be better utilised (eg retail parks near Newmarket Road and on the Science Parks). The City’s airport and current water treatment works offer substantial long-term potential capacity for such development. However, we acknowledge that some “brownfield” sites can have excellent biodiversity (often better than surrounding farmland) and in such cases re-development may not be appropriate unless it can be achieved without loss of biodiversity.
  • New developments should be of high density in order to reduce the amount of land taken for development and to create communities which
  • High density development may mean taller and larger buildings but these should be appropriate to their context and must take into account the historic setting of Cambridge, its villages and views. We do not support high rise building close to the city’s historic core nor emergent high-rise buildings scattered across the city.
  • The redevelopment of suburban properties and gardens in order to achieve higher density should not result in “over-development” or damage the character of local neighbourhoods, including their green infrastructure. It should also respect neighbouring properties.

6. New settlements and garden villages:

  • We believe new settlements must be of a large enough size to promote sufficient education, employment, retail, and leisure opportunities so as to reduce travel and dependence on Cambridge. We do not support the development of isolated suburbs in the countryside.
  • Any new settlements must be located where they can be sustainably linked to other main centres of employment and leisure. Ideally such links already exist, for example railways or the guided busway.
  • The wider implications of new settlements should be fully considered, understood, explained and agreed in advance as part of the planning process, for example any requirements for transport or services infrastructure.

7. Employment:

  • Some employment (and related housing) growth should be encouraged to disperse from greater Cambridge in order to reduce pressure on the over-heated local economy. Until pressures are relieved, we believe such growth would best be located in towns and cities that have good public transport connections to main centres (London, Cambridge) such as Ely, Peterborough, St Neots, Huntingdon, Bedford, Milton Keynes, etc.
  • New employment development should be located where it can be sustainably accessed by employees or where sustainable access can realistically be provided (ie good public transport, cycle and walking access, etc).
  • With development pressure so high in and around Cambridge, priority should be given to knowledge-based industries or those that require access to existing expertise or industry clusters.
  • Master Plans, Area Action Plans or SPDs should be produced to manage the cumulative impacts of clusters of employment or new business parks. Piecemeal development will not be supported.

8. Affordability of housing:

  • We believe sufficient provision for housing should be available for all sections of society.
  • Cambridge has one of the worst ratios of average house price to average income in the UK. This is leading to increasing social inequality, changes in the social make-up of communities and increasing commuting. In turn this creates demand for new transport infrastructure and is becoming a major impediment to recruitment and to the continued prosperity of greater Cambridge. Therefore, all new residential schemes must include at least 40% affordable housing.
  • We believe the current planning and development system cannot deliver sufficient affordable housing for our region and, where we are able, we will lobby for planning reforms that can better deliver this.
  • Large developments should include housing provision for key workers. As well as those people who work within the public sector in roles that are vital to the infrastructure of the community, such as teachers, police officers, armed forces personnel and National Health Service, we believe that key workers for Cambridge should also include care workers, low paid public service workers and low paid support workers (cleaners, porters, etc).
  • Large developments should provide a variety of housing options for different markets in order to achieve faster rates of completion. For example, inclusion of private rented, social rented, retirement, self-build, etc.

9. Quality of place and social cohesion:

  • New development must be designed to the highest standards to produce vibrant communities where people want to live, including the provision of adequate, well landscaped and accessible open space.
  • New developments should achieve the standards set out in the Cambridgeshire Quality Growth Charter, including those for social cohesion. This includes ensuring that community facilities and services are provided in the development from day one.
  • Significant new developments should be informed by the feedback from recent developments and relevant quality panels, such as the Cambridge Design & Conservation Panel or the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel.
  • Quality issues should not be relegated to Reserved Matters in planning applications.

10. Historic environment:

  • The cumulative impacts caused by rapid population and tourism growth in greater Cambridge is placing ever greater pressures on the historic core of Cambridge. We, therefore, believe that the risks to the historic environment and associated mitigation measures must be identified through a Cambridge Historic Environment Strategy.
  • New development should be sensitive to historic buildings and features, especially in and adjacent to Conservation Areas. Historic features should be retained and enhanced wherever possible.

11. Community influence:

  • We believe local communities must have influence in shaping developments in their area. Developments should adhere to Neighbourhood Plans and other local placemaking initiatives such as Village Design Guides.
  • Developers should engage as early as possible with the local community and work with them to help shape their development. We will look favourably on those developments that have the support of their local community.
  • As a civic society we encourage local groups to engage in the planning system and ensure that their views are heard. CambridgePPF is keen to hear the views of local groups on developments proposed for their area in order to help us better understand local issues.

Greater Cambridge Local Plan

Local Plans are produced by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council and set out how much and where development should take place over the period of their plan. They also set out the policies that the Councils will use to assess applications for planning permission. The Local Plans are the most important documents for determining development in our area. They must comply with the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Local Plans usually cover a 10-15 year period and are reviewed and revised, a process which allows local people to have their say.

Ways to Support Us

Joint Local Plan for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire 2019-2023

Since the planning departments from Cambridge City and South Cambs merged, now called Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, there is an obligation to produce a single Local Plan for the area. The ink was barely dry from the adoption of the joint local plan in 2018, when the next round of planning got underway.

The next Local Plan process runs from 2019 with a government examination in 2022-23 and adoption in 2023-24.

There are several stages in this process and at each stage an opportunity for CambridgePPF, other organisations and individuals to put forward their ideas.

The first, Issues & Options, phase was a public consultation called the “Big Conversation”, which took place in the winter of 2019/20. You can read our response to this by clicking here.

In 2020/21 the local authorities commissioned over 30 studies to provide an evidence base for the plan. These included studies into water resources, green infrastructure, landscape and heritage as well as housing and employment needs. CambridgePPF has fed evidence directly into these studies as an organisation that owns and cares for land around Cambridge. We have also been carrying out our own study in partnership with the local Wildlife Trust to identify a Cambridge Nature Network and we have been fed the outputs of this work to the planners as part of the evidence base. The biggest issue to be decided for this plan is the rate of growth that will be planned for.

The government now requires that the minimum level of growth be determined by use of a formula and local councils cannot aim for growth below this without strong evidence. Although it is a “minimum” it is set at a deliberately high level in order to achieve the government target of building 300,000 houses a year across the UK. In the case of Greater Cambridge this would create a requirement for around 40,000 new houses by 2040. This is a lot of new houses but the last Local Plan made provision for such a huge amount of housing that there is already around 35,000 in the planning pipeline.

However, councils can plan for higher levels of growth than the government minimum, and as Cambridge has grown so rapidly in recent years some organisations are arguing that the plan should aim for 60,000 new houses by 2040. CambridgePPF believes that the government minimum would be a massive level of growth but one that it might just be possible to accommodate without further significant detriment to the area.

We believe that planning for growth beyond this level is unsustainable and we will be arguing for the minimum level.

The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service has a website dedicated to the Local Plan process. On this you can find the results of consultations, outputs from evidence base studies and what the next stages in the plan are, click here.

Local Plan 2013-2018

Between 2013-2018 we invested a significant amount of time through the help of our volunteers engaging with the two councils during the Local Plan process. We have put forward our case in front of the government Planning Inspector at most of the hearings, including challenging developers on their speculative proposals, release of green belt land and the need for growth to be in the right places.

Before the hearings began, we signed a Statement of Common Ground with both Councils to show solidarity in resisting the pressures of the developers for much higher growth targets. Our presence at the hearings was often one of the only voices arguing on behalf of the local community for a more sustainable level of growth.

After 6 years the Inspector concluded the Examination and in September 2018 determined that both Local Plans are ‘sound’ and they were subsequently adopted. These Local Plans will be in use until a new Local Plan is adopted.

For the latest information on these Local Plans, please visit each Council’s website: Cambridge City Local Plan and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan

Greater Cambridge Transport

As the population and economy of the Greater Cambridge area has grown, so has the problem of traffic congestion.

Significant levels of population growth are planned for the period up to 2031 and beyond, which poses a risk of congestion becoming chronic. This could create a number of threats to the green setting and heritage of the area as well as to quality of life and long-term prosperity.

Ways to Support Us

Cambridge’s international competitiveness in a global high-tech market-place will be eroded unless the inter-related problems of affordable housing and traffic congestion are addressed.

Maintaining Cambridge as an attractive compact historic city in its green setting, with corridors of countryside reaching into the city centre, can only be achieved if new large-scale development is located outside the Green Belt. The sustainability of this development strategy requires that people can move effectively between these new residential developments and places of employment in and around Cambridge.

Inappropriate or ineffective infrastructure projects can damage the area’s environment and heritage without solving the congestion problem. Providing an effective solution to Cambridge’s traffic congestion that does not cause unnecessarily harm to the environment and heritage is one of the area’s greatest challenges.

In CambridgePPF’s opinion, the approach adopted to date has lacked clarity about its long-term goals, comprising a piecemeal approach of disjointed projects to improve public transport and deter car drivers – new bus-lanes, improved cycling opportunities, restricted street parking, and the like.

Whilst some of these initiatives are welcome and are likely to make a positive short-term difference, they lack a coherent strategic framework to provide the necessary integration and mutual reinforcement to produce an effective long-term strategy.

It is our concern that without a strategic framework of what we want our transport policy to deliver, we will continue with individual short-term measures that will fail to generate the step-changes we so urgently need.

We are actively involved in trying to influence the type, scale and location of transport infrastructure in order to minimise the impact on the environment, heritage and quality of life.

We have produced a suite of Principles for a Transport Strategy for the Greater Cambridge Area. They provide a basis for us to assess the merits and shortcomings of potential transport initiatives. It is our hope that these will also stimulate debate about what is required for a coherent and consistent approach to transport planning for Greater Cambridge.

1. The Fundamental Principle – Modal Shift

The long-term goal of any transport strategy for the Greater Cambridge area must be modal shift – to get drivers to use other modes of transport instead of private cars or to car share. This requires more than just making available an attractive public transport alternative for it will also require active measures to discourage car use – there is no point in creating new bus-ways if the buses continue to run half empty and the roads remain congested. Disincentives to drive can include both passive measures, like road closures, bollards, and restrictions on parking, as well as active demand management, including financial measures.

The approach to date appears to be based on an assumption that make improved public transport available and the public will use it in preference to their cars. Experience from other cities shows that people are reluctant to change their travel behaviour, and will do so only when it involves a direct personal cost or motivational trigger.

All measures proposed to improve city access and alleviate congestion must be able to demonstrate the direct contribution they make to the basic goal of generating modal shift.

2. Secondary Principles

I. Provide a Real Choice of Transport Mode:

The travelling public should be provided with a real choice of transport options to meet their individual needs. With the squeezing of services, especially in rural areas, many people now do not have this choice and have no option but to use the car. Public transport options can include heavy and light rail as well as buses but there needs to be connectivity and integration between modes, including walking, cycling, and the car. Rather than routing services through the city centre, people want options linking where they can leave their car (at home or Park & Ride sites) with their place of work.

II. Secure a Sustainable Long-Term Source of Revenue Funding:

The travelling public will switch transport mode only if the alternative is safe, reliable, convenient, and cheap. This will inevitably require a substantial level of subsidy, so where will this come from when Local Authorities are in no position to provide? One option is through financial demand management so that those who chose to drive rather than use upgraded public transport contribute directly to the cost of that alternative. Obviously any such charge must be applied in a way that is equitable and fair, and does not discriminate against any one section of the travelling public.

III. Adopt a Sub-Regional Approach:

Whilst the primary focus of the congestion problem may relate to access to Cambridge, the alleviation measures must be developed in a much wider sub-regional context covering the surrounding rural areas, where bus services are declining, and links to the nearby market towns.

IV. New Innovative Thinking:

Cambridge has an international reputation for innovation and this could be reflected in its transport systems.

New technologies in the transport sector are rapidly coming on-stream, like high speed mass transit systems, electric buses, driverless vehicles, and zero polluting engines.

Old polluting buses are likely to become obsolete in the near future so whilst they may play a short-term role, they do not represent an attractive long-term option. Should Cambridge to be at the forefront of implementing new transport solutions?

V. Social and Environmental Considerations:

New transport infrastructure can be socially and environmentally damaging so transport planning should seek the least disruptive option. Transport development should be subject to the same sustainability assessment as any other development, and such analysis should be undertaken early in the planning to eliminate options that are clearly damaging. Making maximum use of existing infrastructure by locating future growth where infrastructure for sustainable transport already exists, or can be easily upgraded, will minimise damage. The potential of tunnelling to move large numbers of people around the city without impacting on the medieval streets, historic buildings and countryside setting, should be explored.

VI. Tackle Air Pollution:

Cambridge’s air quality not infrequently breaches European and UK legal limits for NO2 emissions from vehicle, particularly bus, emissions. Less polluting transport options need to be considered, including the creation of an expanded Air Quality Management Area with an Emissions Charge to drive within the zone. If more buses are to be routed into the centre of Cambridge, these must be hybrid or electric to minimise the impact on air quality.

VII. Timescales, Planning, and Future-Proofing:

Some practical measures can be taken to alleviate traffic congestion in the short-term whilst others will 

take many years to prepare and consult, but this longer lead-in time should not preclude their inclusion in a comprehensive transport strategy for the future. What is needed is the clarity of a long-term plan that sets out the full picture incorporating all measures rather than just a basket of short-term projects. All measures should have a timetable showing when they will be implemented and for how long they may be expected to run. Significant investment in short-term measures should clearly be avoided if such actions are likely to be quickly superseded by more ambitious longer-term initiatives. However, the complete strategy, including both short-and long-term measures, is needed and needed now.

CambridgePPF Position on Congestion Charging

We have advocated some form of road-use charge since 2009. We have consistently argued, and continue to do so, that Cambridge’s traffic problems can be alleviated only through a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the supply and demand for road use. Simply throwing government money at engineering projects will not work.

The congestion problem is the direct result of an imbalance between demand and capacity – demand by drivers to use the roads, and the capacity of

the road network to absorb that demand. Resolving the problem means addressing this imbalance. The engineering approach is to increase capacity – more busways, bus lanes, dual carriageways, revamped intersections, junction upgrades, etc. Such reliance on infrastructure engineering is a 1980s approach. If effective, it merely encourages more drivers to use their cars so the problem re-emerges or it simply shifts the bottleneck further down the road. This approach is also often damaging to the environment and heritage.

Demand can be reduced by both passive and fiscal means. Passive measures have already been tried through the Core Traffic Scheme – tidal-flow bollards, bus-lanes giving priority to public transport, ramped up car parking charges, restricting car parking space etc – but all this has done is to shown how resilient the average car driver is in the face of such pressure. Passive measures alone do not work.

An approach that has been shown to work effectively in other cities is through the direct payment of a user charge. If you want to use your car, then you pay, and your payment goes directly into subsidising an efficient cheap public transport system.

We recognise that any scheme must be as equitable and fair as possible. It should not penalise commuters while city dwellers benefit from free-flowing streets. Just as important, there must be an element of social equity with those who can least afford, paying less.

We have been lobbying the County Council and Greater Cambridge Partnership for investment to be made into researching the options and operational details of introducing a road-charging scheme,

for example how much income this might generate to support improved public transport and how issues of equality and fairness can be overcome. Once these details are known then there would be an opportunity for informed public debate about whether or not such a scheme should be introduced and when.

This should be progressed alongside proposals for improved public transport not afterwards.

Donations:

Donate to support
habitat restoration
& maintenance

Donate Now

Membership:

Enjoy year-round
benefits & exclusive
events

Join Us

Appeals:

Specific fundraising
projects for site
improvements

Donate Now

Skip to content