 Good evening everybody and welcome along to our webinar panel session on some of the emerging evidence for the Greater Cambridge local plan and my name is Paul Frainer. I'm assistant director for strategy and economy at the Greater Cambridge planning service and I'm just going to do a little bit of a intro and housekeeping for everybody and then we'll get straight into the session. So we've got about an hour and the topics around for you as the public and people who have arrived to see us to share some of the information that we've been working through and developing over the last few months on the Greater Cambridge local plan and kind of give you a bit of a heads up on what we've been doing and give you a chance to ask some questions and it's not a formal consultation, it's just good practice really we promise would be transparent and try and share things as they were coming out. And we felt this was a good time to share some of those thoughts as they were published for our committee groups as well. And the actual formal consultation stage for those of you interested will be back in the summer 2021, which seems a long way away from now but in our team I think that's coming up pretty soon. So it's an hour long. The web in our tonight is being recorded. I have had a few Wi-Fi issues so if I do drop out my one of us in the team or tag team and try and get this get it seamlessly across to you and you can post anonymously please there's no chat function you have to use the Q&A. Obviously or you can choose to use your names we won't read out your names when we do the Q&A. So there's one slide presentation, which is about 15 minutes long, followed by 15 minute Q&A, and then another slide presentation which is about 10 minutes followed by another 10 minute Q&A. So that's the format. I'm going to introduce our presenters straight panelists today we've got a few of the team here some of our experts on some of the work that's been going on. And I'll let them introduce themselves and then we'll crack on with the session so I'm going to first go to you Hannah. Hi my name's Hannah Loftus I'm the lead for engagement and communications with the shared planning service. Thank you Hannah. Hi my name is Stuart Morris I'm a principal planner in the policy strategy and economy team for the Greater Cambridge Share Planning Service. Thank you Stuart I'm going to John. Hi John Dixon planning policy manager working on the local plan. Here's John Caroline. Hello I'm Caroline Hunt I'm strategy and economy manager working alongside John on the local plan. Thank you Caroline and at last but not least Nadine. Hi Nadine I'm Nadine and I'm the local plan project manager in the planning service. Cheers Nadine and we've got Joe Burnham up in the corner as well she's helping us run things tonight and for the tech side of things and help running the chat. So I'm going to hand over to Hannah who's going to present us some slides and we can get on with the webinar. Thanks everybody. So we're just going to take you through a little bit of background first of all, and just talk about the stage we're at. So, sorry Portuguese I went a bit faster than intended just to clarify where we're at the local plan preparation as Paul outlined, we're in between the first conversation consultation that happened earlier this year. And the preferred options public consultation which will be around the middle of next year. So at this point in time we've just published some initial evidence findings and this is part of some stakeholder engagement that we are doing over the next couple of weeks. We wanted to just share that with the public as well so that you're all cited on the kind of evidence that is coming out at this point in time and what it might mean for the plan going forward. So just to recap that we are structuring the local plan around some of the big themes that we consulted on in the function and in the first conversation. And there was a really strong support in the consultation responses for those big themes in terms of a way of structuring and understanding what's important about the area going forward. What was really interesting was that climate change was definitely the highest priority with well being in social inclusion as a second and I think that really helps us frame what we're trying to do with the plan which is balance how do we meet the needs of our communities in terms of jobs homes affordable homes and other things to do with well being alongside the climate change emergency that both councils have declared and our need to get to net zero carbon. The plan obviously takes place in a wider context which we're very aware of and talking to many partners regionally and nationally about that, including the Oxcamp arc in East West Rail. And then of course the background of the city deal which brings in a lot of investment based on supporting growth which is identified in our adopted local plans, and of course the work that combined authority is also doing. So be very mindful of that context and some of the evidence that you'll be hearing about also talks about some of those wider issues. It's very important that the local plan that we come up with is what is known in the technical terminology as sound that basically means that it passes the tests that are set for us by the national planning framework that we are required to work within. Those four points are here on the slide which are to be positively prepared which means that we need to have objectively assess the need for development in our area and meet that as a minimum. It needs to be justified so we need to have looked at reasonable alternatives we can't just go to one solution without having looked at what the alternatives are. And it needs to be effective which means that we can actually achieve it in practice. And of course it has to be consistent with national policy. So during this last stage since the first conversation we have been doing an awful lot of work to gather and analyze a range of baseline data and also start to explore what some of those reasonable alternatives and different options might be. So we've commissioned a range of evidence based consultants to work with us and we have also calculated the minimum requirement according to the government standard method, which is essentially a formula for how much housing, how the area may be considered to need as a minimum. We've also looked at future economic growth and what that might look like if it was faster. And those are some figures that Caroline will go through in a minute and then what housing levels might be needed to support that. We looked at a range of broad locations for new development and those are very deliberately diverse so this is not about saying that any one of those locations is the strategy that the eventual plan might have. It's about testing what are the implications of different sorts of approaches for locating development. And what this stage is really about is then testing that against some of the emerging evidence. So asking those specialists to tell us, well in regard to net zero carbon or water or any of these other matters, how well do each of those locations perform what are the pros and cons. So we're now helping ourselves and our elected members and councillors here decide on what the preferred strategy may be going forward. So we've published this all on our website and we'll show you the website details at the end of this for your records. And it really is about being transparent with us. We want to help everybody test this. And we have been holding and are continuing to hold a series of workshops for representatives from different stakeholder groups to get some more detailed input from them. And then we'll move over to Caroline who will start talking about the growth level options that we've been looking at. Thank you Hannah. A key part of any plan is to consider what the future needs for its area is for the homes and for jobs, the infrastructure that supports it. And we've set out those overarching things that will be the lens through which we look. At the issue of homes and jobs and national policy from government tells us that we must use a standard method to calculate the minimum number of homes that are needed for our area. And we've wanted also to then understand the number of jobs that would be supported by that number of homes. But as Hannah said, we've also commissioned evidence to look at future job growth potential in this area, recognizing that Greater Cambridge area is nationally and in fact internationally significant in terms of economic growth, particularly around the high tech and life science sectors. And there's been really fast growth in in recent times in fact over the last 10 years we've delivered. It looks from data to be almost the significant proportion of the growth that we anticipated coming over 20 years in our current adopted plans. And the evidence is suggesting that there will be continued strong growth in those key sectors. So we wanted to understand that if there is potential for future jobs growth in the area, what would be the number of homes that would need to sit alongside that to make sure that we are providing for a sustainable form of development in this area. And that's led us to through that evidence identifying some potential growth levels. So we in the table on the screen you can see that we have benchmarked that against our current adopted plans. And the minimum level of housing growth is is a little more than we've been delivering per annum in our current plans. In terms of homes, but actually would be a reduction in the delivery of jobs into into the future. Looking at the medium level our economic forecast suggests that this is the most likely outcome taking account of long term historic growth over the last 1020 years or more. It's not of the fast growth has been in key sectors in the recent past, but it does take that longer term trend thinking about the check the economic cycles that we inevitably go through. And that gives us a medium level of growth that we've looked at in testing reasonable options. And then it does look at potential for actually if the fast growth over the last 510 years in these key sectors were to continue. What might that look like in terms of jobs growth and then we've looked to understand what that looks like in terms of homes to sit alongside it. And thinking about the supply of land for bringing forward jobs and homes. On the job side, we already have quite a significant supply of employment land that goes some way towards meeting even some of the higher jobs for costs here. And then on the housing side, we have already quite a significant supply of homes within our current plans. Hannah, could you go to the next slide please. Thank you. And our current plans include significant amounts of development so that includes a number of new settlements for example like at Norster or Water Beach and so on where we always knew they were sites that were going to deliver well beyond our adopted plans to 2031 and actually beyond even the new plan to 2041. And when you take that all into account we've got over 36,000 homes in the pipeline based on our current assessments, but that's obviously something we'll need to keep under review. It's also important that our plan is capable of adapting to rapid change. And to do that we've included a 10% buffer on those numbers that you saw on the previous screen so when you look at that together. That suggests that in terms of additional housing that needs to be allocated in the new plan that ranges from about 4,000 for the minimum around 10,000 for the medium and around 26,000 for the maximum so quite a range there in the amount of homes that we need to find. But I think it is important to think about in the context of the overall supply we already have, and you can see that graphically there. So a significant amount of supply already, and it depends which of the growth levels we look at as to how much more we need to find. Another point that is important to think about here so if all local authorities across the country deliver against this government standard method. Way of calculating homes, then it, it assumes pretty much that the same sort of pattern of movements between where people live and where they work would just continue into the future and wouldn't have potential consequences for for further growth beyond that. Where though we're testing options that do look for higher level of growth. For the, within the area. For the medium level we've, we've looked at if the potential same pattern of development were to continue. What does that mean for our neighbors for us or our neighbors and it's potentially another 2400 homes over the standard method, and for the maximum, it would be 3000 over the standard method. That could be dealt with it could be the greater Cambridge provides all of those, or it could be that our neighbors do or some pattern in between. So we've been very transparent about the implications of the different growth levels for the area. And then, lastly, from me. It's really important at this point to recognize that we're in a unprecedented times. We've been talking about Brexit for many years what impact that could have but obviously covered in the pandemic. Now, we know it's having an immediate impact on on the way people where people work and commuting and so on, but we're really at the heart of it now and it's still difficult to tell what the long term predictions might be so we will have to keep that under review as we go through our plan as more information becomes available. And so for example I think there's a sense that a lot of people are now working at home and does what does that mean for employment lands and also for travel and traffic. There's been some really recent information that only about a quarter of workers will work exclusively from home, even with the severe restrictions in place in October so we'll we'll really have to look and see how that plays out over time and what impact it would have on our plan. I'm now going to hand over to John to take you through some of the other evidence findings that we've so far identified. Local plans are supported by an awful lot of evidence behind the reasoning behind the policies and helping develop really what the plan needs to address and how it might go about addressing it and at this stage. We've published some of the initial findings that evidence that we've done so far, particularly looking at the evidence relating to the impact of some of the growth. And that's just run through and also some of the spatial choices which I come on to talk about later. Just to highlight a few of the studies which really have some important evidence relating to those numbers. We've commissioned a study specifically looking at how our local plan can contribute to the journey towards net zero carbon. It's a big issue for both councils. But what the different implications of where you put homes might have for carbon, and that could be looking at the her there carbon generated from the construction of the homes themselves. The carbon generated by the users of those dwellings so when you're using energy in the home for example, and also the energy used in transport and what it really shows is, while through policies you can certainly reduce the amount of carbon generated by the users of future dwellings. There'll still be some impact from transport and those impacts vary depending on where you are and in particular what access you have to sustainable forms of transport and that difference can be as much as three times in terms of the much carbon depending on whether you're in a fairly not connected public transport village location for example compared with being in an urban area so it's quite significant differences. There's lots of charts and in diagrams in the study, which you can see on our website, but I'll come on to later showing some of the spatial choices we've tested. And that chart really shows some of the differences you get between those different spatial choices when you look at how much carbon per home they might generate. And the next chart shows how you might compare the amount of carbon overall so particularly interesting on the left hand side of that chart it shows the amount of carbon being generated from our well existing developments existing districts as they are now moving across to the right shows us much smaller bar chart showing the amount of carbon generated by the growth or in our pipelines. And then, and the more colorful bit towards the right to start to compare the growth choices we've been testing those amounts of growth looking minimum, medium, maximum, and business is usually it's referring to building dwellings in the way we do now. And the zero carbon would be zero carbon policies would be what if you can impose those policies which try to deal with the carbon generated by the use of the dwellings, but it was still leave carbon generated by transport and that's really what is showing those different choices that we have available how they might generate carbon. We're also aware that water issues are very important to our local community and reflecting that we commissioned a significant study, looking at all sorts of water issues related to the plan, and it particularly looked at water supply issues. So it's quite clear in that study there's no longer capacity in the chalk records which serve much of our water needs to supply growth that we plan through this new local plan. Water supply needs to be dealt with by balancing supplies by being more efficient with the way we use for water, and also looking at water from sustainable sources. The minimum growth option is certainly capable of being accommodated in in current supplies. It becomes much more challenging for the higher growth levels and indeed the study refers for the maximum growth option is it being a deal breaker. There is potentially water available particularly looking at through regional scale interventions such as reservoirs for example, but because of the timing of those in current normal ways you deliver water infrastructure. Water supply needs to be available until the mid 2030s that would have impact on how you could deliver those high growth options unless you can find a way of delivering them more quickly. And then we've also commissioned a study looking at housing delivery because it's important we look at whether the homes we plan for that they can actually be delivered to meet the needs of being that are being identified. So we should be looking to have a balance of supply looking at sites that can come from in both the short, medium and longer term. It highlights some of the challenges really about actually delivering the homes in those higher growth standards, both in terms of an overall number that you'd be seeking to do every year across the whole area, but also the challenges of increasing the growth rates on individual sites which can achieve those numbers so how how many homes can actually be sold, for example if you build them quickly. It shows that the medium option largely is capable of doing but it might be more challenges related to that higher option. And then just quickly to highlight some of those pros and cons again with the minimum. It's like that you can address the water issues through appropriate policies. You can probably deliver the homes and the but those homes targets don't necessarily respond to the evidence on the economy that Caroline highlighted earlier. And then on the medium, the water issues are more challenging but can plausibly be addressed housing delivery can plausibly addressed. There's a lot more to those economic needs along that sort of central medium scenario. And then for the maximum, as I mentioned earlier for water it looks more challenging for housing delivery, more challenging as well. I think now we're moving on to some Q&A. Many thanks, John, Caroline and Hannah so yeah, I already see some questions coming through now so if you want to type your questions into the Q&A function down the bottom we'll try and work through them. At the end I think we're okay to do that. So just quickly I'll deal off with the first one because it is a webinar session and you have to ask for the Q&A function rather than ask questions. Hopefully, and I think that's just the way that this is being set up particularly works for this session. So I'm going to pick up the first question should any plans be halted and reviewed considering the changes to our economy, ways of working where we now work in the last nine months. So I think as Caroline I'll touch on this quickly and others can come in if they wish to. I think as Caroline touched on we're very acutely aware of the real uncertainty both economically but also from a regulatory point of view and you know we know that there are planning reform changes coming in changes that may well affect how we prepare a local plan and the message from government at the moment a is that we should continue plan making. I suppose the issue is as well that we should have a current and up to date plan in place otherwise we risk speculative development from developers and we want to have control over how the area looks. So we should be continuing to make plans. The point of having a local plan is also that we have a five year review every five years the plan is reviewed. So you know some of this evidence really and some of the work around the economic piece won't be forthcoming we won't see trends for far far longer than nine months, 12 months, 18 months because they do take some time for us to be able to understand them. So I suppose it's a difficult one but we need to still collect the evidence and still continue without making it this present moment in time. I don't know if anyone else wants to add into that from the panel. Okay, so we'll move on quickly. In the 2018 Spatial Strategy S6 you were clear that housing would come from edge of Cambridge in the new settlements rural and minor rural centres you protected the smaller villages. We are a group village S10. Are you changing the village classifications. I think I'm going to hand to Caroline for a lot of experience in this area. I think at this stage it's probably a little early to say quite whether we'll be carrying forward the previous hierarchy or looking to any refinement of it at all. We did some consultation on that through the first conversation and as we look through the responses we've received, we'll be considering that further. But I suppose what I would say is that with the emphasis on on climate change and sustainable development we're very, we're still very mindful of locations that can, you know, respect those key concerns, while still recognising the social side of sustainable development to and we're keen to understand from villages what they think their future needs are as part of our plan making process. Thanks very much Caroline. I've got another one here please can you clarify what you consider to be edge of Cambridge non Greenbelt as the city is surrounded by Greenbelt so I think I've passed a John on this but Stuart might be helpful to answer as well on this one. So there are two pretty significant areas on the edge of Cambridge which don't form part of the Greenbelt which we've explored through the spatial options which are come on to a minute the first is northeast Cambridge. And you may have seen we did some consultation slightly earlier in the year on how that area might be planned for. The second part of the presentation is the Cambridge Airport site which was actually removed from the Greenbelt. About 10 years ago I could be wrong and safeguarded for development so it's no longer part of the Greenbelt the self safeguarded for future development should it become available so both those choices being looked at through the spatial options are come on to the second part of the presentation. Okay, let's move on to this one here I'm going to try and pick through them as much as I can we will get through. I should like it all of these and so far so how much brownfield land is left to use before expanding into the Greenbelt. Who wants to pick that up. Caroline. Yes, I mean, it's interesting isn't it so there's very little further large brownfield land left in in greater Cambridge that hasn't already been identified for development. John mentioned north east Cambridge that is one of the key last undeveloped brownfield sites. And that is something that has been looked at in in previous plans and the councils are currently preparing an area action plan for that area in anticipation that the wall street and works can potentially now get be relocated. So that's very much the last major brownfield site we've, we have in this area. Thank you Caroline, and I'm going to answer this one as well and there's a couple of questions or observations around the economic issues which are actually quite helpful to see those and I think as I said before I think that understanding that we know that we're in a very uncertain time economically and that our initial evidence base in fact the work that you know it picks up that economic land review if you've seen the document library, you know that was commissioned and started prior to cobit and we have just, you know, we are aware of that and that's caveated within it, and we are aware that we wanted to do some further economic work but what it will pick up on this question here. So regarding the questions asked have you factored into this evidence what is happening to the city centre as this impacts the local plan and transport to. The current evidence basis just haven't considered that at this second in time because they are prior to that. So, and we are aware and I have communicated that this is, you know, the earliest stage findings and some of the evidence basis we didn't actually commissioned until after the issues and options consultation back in the early part of the year so it is a very early piece of work. And so we really need to start, you know, bringing some of these together and there will be further studies that won't no doubt need to be commissioned as we move forward, but also within the constraints of the time scouts we have set within the local development scheme, and in terms of when we're trying to meet different milestones within the plan making process to get a plan by the end of that, that period to take through examination. Anyone else want to come in on any of those matters I don't know if John you would like to come in on any of them in particular element to you know fine let's move on let's keep on with the green bell. We have a very limited amount of green belt separating us from Cambridge I'm very much in favour of limiting development in green belt in a group village more efficiencies in new sustainable sustainable assessments, our village plan 2018 only 5% of residents support development in our green belt is that acknowledged. Do you want to pick this one up. Yeah, I mean I think it's a really interesting one actually because in the consultation responses from the first conversation we've had a really, really wide range of views on this and that's something we're very mindful of moving forward. The green belt you know is seen as very, very important, but we've also heard a range of views about where that might be balanced for some of the climate change considerations for example so that is a really interesting point and I think we're going to be showing a few more of the implications of that actually in the slides coming up in a minute, which go through some of those locational options and possible locations in a bit more detail. And we might should move on to those slides because I'm very aware of time actually so I'm just going to hand back to john to go through some of those spatial options and then we'll pick up the rest of these questions after this next part of the presentation. So I'm just going to go through how we looked at some of the spatial options that are available and got some of that evidence based to test the pros and the cons and the issues and the opportunities about where we might locate future growth in the next local plan. These options will be quite familiar if you read our first conversation consultation back in February it really shows at that time what we thought the broad spatial choices were available to the new plan. Before we moved on to the next stage though we wanted to check whether there were other ones we should be considering this very broad level and early stage. And as you can see, having looked at over 97 ideas, 29 were shortlisted, we actually got down to two real broad spatial choices we felt weren't adequately covered at this point. And they were an additional look at integrating jobs and homes, taking the southern part of Cambridge where we've got another number of local business parks grant a part welcome and so on, whether that might be a choice where you locate homes. And then on the western side of Cambridge, particularly with transport infrastructure being looked at and East West rail potentially delivering a railway station at Canborn, whether one option we should be exploring in more detail was further growth on that particular corridor. Having come up with those options effectively we allocated the numbers of homes we were testing as we talked about earlier to make sure we had 24 spatial strategy options with the same number of them so three, three different growth levels of medium and maximum minimum. And then the eight with a same growth in each each of those sets to make sure we were testing the same, and they were very focused on to those spatial choices. In some cases we had to then bring in other spatial areas to make up the numbers and I'll explain that a bit further. They're quite clear choice at this point you might think they're very clear and very focused on a particular choice that was really deliberate because we really want to be able to identify the pros and cons. The plan at the end could take elements for a number of them but this is really a testing phase. So, running through the spatial choices very quickly the first one I mentioned was a densification approach, and this one was really aimed at testing the idea of what if you try and focus development into existing urban areas. As you can see for the minimum option, we tested putting the homes into the existing urban area and highlighted some of the pros and cons of doing that for example the focused options in urban areas means you get good access to transport and so on, but I have some challenges about building in existing areas that you would have to overcome. So as we go through towards the medium growth clearly you'd need to put additional growth in your very focused option and bring in further sites such as the airport site. And in the maximum, we know we would need to deliver additional growth again but perhaps deliver some of our existing sites faster to make out some of the numbers but that would bring challenges as acknowledged on the slide. And as we picked up in that question edge of Cambridge non green belt, the two options really focused on here are northeast Cambridge and Cambridge airport so it'll be about delivering homes in that area which again comes with pros and cons in the options. And then for the medium. So in this case to make the testing work we brought in some additional growth that new settlements, and in the maximum was all about building a site site faster with additional growth again so you can see building up a pattern of testing those options to really highlight those pros and cons. To explore an option of whether we should be releasing further land from the green belt on the edge of the city clearly we focused our minimum growth on what would happen if we had additional green belt releases to meet that growth. And then the medium option. And then again for the maximum be bringing those sites forward quicker if you can manage to do that and further growth the new settlements again. And then the new settlements option here. Very similar new settlements on transport corridors would be the focus of this option. And then going through the medium you would need to have further new settlements. And at the maximum. It would need to be delivering those faster and again new settlements bring some benefits in terms of having that clean slate to deliver new infrastructure in a very focused manner. But equally that can be challenging because you can't rely on existing infrastructure you need you need that to support their early growth though. It's real pros and cons there. And then we had an option looking at villages this one's a bit was it says on the tin because you can see from this option we decided to test what would happen if you distribute a growth across the existing villages in the area so you can see a very scattered pattern there on that map. That brings a lot of challenges because in many cases these village options where you focus growth in a very scattered manner before worse in terms of impact on carbon and infrastructure delivery and so on. And those patterns are really emphasized as you went through the medium and the maximum where as you can see we simply increased the number of developments in those areas for testing. And then we almost had almost a hybrid option here. We thought well if you're going to really focus on transport corridors you might do a combination of further new settlements but also growing the villages that are going to benefit from those transport links. And as you can see we built that picture up again through the medium and the maximum as well. So there's two extra options we looked at. The one that I had mentioned the southern cluster option would again be a hybrid option where you've perhaps needed a new settlement but also you focus additional growth at existing villages near to those employment areas. And again building up before the growth in this villages and at the new settlement and through to the maximum. You might need to bring in additional sites additional locations to make up the numbers to make that a practical option for testing this stage. And on the western corridor, very similar approach where you might have further growth based on new settlement and growth at the villages on that transport corridor. And then to do that testing process, increasing the growth through the medium and then towards the maximum have additional effects. So as you'll have seen, they are quite stark and they really do focus growth to try enables to really pour over those pros and cons and issues and opportunities to inform our decision making as we start to develop that preferred approach to the plan. And all the evidence based pieces that we've published alongside that really then start to probe what those pros and cons are and you can find all the evidence on our website. Thank you very much, John. So we're into the final parts we've got about 20 minutes left for Q&A so please do get your questions in because when you've got six in there at the moment I just want to introduce Stephen Kelly who's joined the panel so you want to introduce yourself Stephen. Thank you for good evening everybody sorry I couldn't join you at the beginning of notice the questions really interesting questions and we hope the answers are helpful to you clearly at the stage of the plan that we're at at the some of these matters are work in progress rather than necessarily definitive but with the interesting line of questions so far and and I'm sure the team and anxious to answer further so I'll be quiet. Thank you very much Stephen so let's start going through some questions then. And is it worth having faster review cycles in our particular dramatic changes anticipated in over the next few years post Brexit post COVID so I'm going to give this one to Caroline and others can come in on it if we want to have a bit of a discussion about it too. And it's really keen that local authorities do review their plans on a regular cycle anyway as I think we mentioned earlier on at least every five years. We've committed to undertaking an early review of our adopted plans and it's really important that we keep moving forwards with with this plan. But we will certainly be keeping under review thing, you know, changes that happen during this plan making process, and it's always possible that when you monitor you monitor a plan once you've adopted it and if there are reasons to make changes you can make partial changes to plans as well as full blown comprehensive review so that's very much something that we can and will keep under review as we move forward. Thanks Caroline and I'm going to move on to. Would you consider incorporating in the new local plan developing further eco housing developments like Marmalade Lane in Orchard Park, Cambridge, Stephen I think that you came to pick this one up so I'm going to pass this one to you. Well I think the work that John has been leading on looking at net zero carbon actually means that I'm sure that eco homes, passive house type developments will be an important part of the spatial strategy heading towards the plan through the plan period. John, I don't know whether you want to comment on any further on the work that we've done around net zero carbon and its implications but I encourage everyone on the call to look at it. Yeah, absolutely stress that study is really only an initial phase of that work and they are very much looking at what standards we might need to include. We also need to feed that through all the evidence evidence basis so what implications and for the viability of science for example so there's a lot of work to do that we're still bringing forward in those studies. Thanks both. I'm going to pick one up on a pretty live subject nationally at the moment so also government algorithm is going to be adjusted to avoid favoritism of the southern and the eastern regions and we've had a little bit of thought around this so I'm going to ask Stuart Morris to pick this one up. Thanks Paul. There's been a lot of news about algorithms generally this year and last, I guess it's possible as noting that this algorithm is really a fairly simple calculation that determining our minimum housing need, which takes into account past population growth, just for affordability and the favoritism that's come out in the news about south and southeast. To my understanding reflects those affordability challenges that you see in this area and in the southeast. There was this consultation on a revised version that sought to place greater weight on the change in affordability over the last 10 years and for us that suggested it might lower the figure. But now there's been clearly significant negative responses to that suggestion we don't know where that's going to go right now. Just yet. Okay, next one what is the likely demand for new employment land. I'm going to go to John for this one Steven you want to dip into. Well, I think the answer to this one is set out in the study we've published an employment land review study which you can find on our website and some of that findings are that we have got a strong supply of existing employment land. But it does say there are certain certainly some quantitative but also qualitative issues that need to be addressing that supply. So for example it certainly hides we might need some further space for small sort of warehousing because we're all perhaps using online services more than we, we did a number of years ago. But it also picks up some issues like there might be certain types even with the high tech industries that aren't being have sufficient space for like, like wet labs which are a particular type of lab they use in a life sciences so there is still need to certain types of employment but a good supply there and if you want to look at the detail, please go to the study. We will highlight you to this website as well afterwards where the studies are all there they are in one single document library they should be reasonably easy to find that we can always help with that. I'm going to move to a transport question now. And when can we expect to study into the impact of these options on traffic densities in Cambridge at times we are close to gridlock now in some areas and pollution exceeds permissible levels. At some times of day. Yeah, thanks Paul you're breaking up a bit but yes I'm happy to take that one. We started some initial work on transport modeling of the different spatial options that we we've tested. That's to understand both the overall traffic implications and also how different spatial options perform in terms of how attractive they are to get people out of their cars. Actually, because a lot of what we, you know, we all want to be moving forward is that we were used more sustainable forms of travel so a lot of it is also around how accessible different spatial options are by by active both so cycling and walking but also by forms of transport to. And that will very much continue as we move through the process of I moving towards a preferred option and making sure that we understand if there are transport mitigation measures needed to improve and deal with the impact of traffic that they're something we require through the plan. I think the other thing I would just say around the pollution part of that question. Is that both pollution but also the emission side of thing is really important and as john was saying in the zero carbon evidence. It's really helpful to start to try and get a sense of actually how different the different spatial strategies are, you know, we've always been thinking about if there's a higher level of bus use or whatever that's likely to be better in terms of it's a state it's sustainability and it's in its emissions and impact but with through this quite innovative study we're trying to get a more of a quantitative idea and understanding of those different choices so that can feed into our consideration as we move towards preferred strategy. Thank you very much Caroline I'm going to pick up one question around zero carbon because it's a quick one and then I'm going to move on to an interesting one about brownfield land. So the, can we confirm the zero carbon is zero from the construction, as well as a lifetime of property. And I think that it picks up the zero carbon studies actually really kind of innovative piece really because it's quite new in terms of what it's actually trying to achieve and it does pick up the embodied carbon and profiles a lot of those with some of it I would encourage it's actually quite an easy report to read it's got some technical stuff in there but it's actually pretty clear in the summary has some really good discussion points in it so yes the answer to that. And I'm going to move to the brownfield site question there is a large brownfield site the service carpark to use for new market road retail parts. These could house 2000 people if developed carpark and could still be provided as basement or ground for parking that's about a similar developments carried out in Gateshead 2016 can the council encourage this type of development to come forward. Stephen do you want to pick this one up. Absolutely. Obviously the site in question was was previously developed land and I'm aware has some ground condition issues with it but but but certainly the work that we'll be doing will be thinking quite hard about sites like this, particularly in the context of other questions that people have asked about the future of retailing and so on. And, and actually just to broaden a number of these bracket a number of these questions together. One of the things that I hope people understand as they look through the evidence is how a number of these issues are all interrelated and that we are looking at them together so for example the point around employment land and where it is and the questions about commuting and traveling to work, alongside things like biodiversity and the, and the implications for carbon are all are not separate pieces of work, but certainly they're informing some of the ways in which, hopefully you can see we've we're starting to assess the spatial options. Absolutely in terms of new market road. Obviously the landowners haven't I don't think submitted those sites for the call for size but that doesn't stop the planning authority from exploring what the future might mean for sites like that as we go forward looking for sustainable ways to grow a greater Cambridge. Thank you very much Stephen okay next one and it should be noted grows as an example bought Greenbelt farmland which is now being proposed for building upon in Trumpington, even when homes bill and the issues in this area remain unresolved more comment really but I think it's worth touching on do you want to pick that one up Caroline sorry. Well I think it's it's interesting isn't it so they're an awful lot of landowners and developer interest in in this part of the world. We publish the results of our call for sites in September and we've had well over 600 sites already submitted to us so there's a and they range from very large sites on the edge of Cambridge to new settlements to and we will be looking at at all of those. At this stage they don't have any status and you know we will go through the process of assessing them and identifying the most appropriate sites moving forward but I suppose it is worth saying that you know we have to be clear that the sites that we put into our plan are capable of being delivered and and having willing and able promoters is is not a bad thing as a matter of principle we have to do is to make sure we take from the best the best sites that are most appropriate for our strategy to include in our plans. Thank you very much Caroline and so I've got a question. I've got to map let me just do this one first I think how do you correlate what is being said about the local plan and transport schemes currently going through consultation. There are prioritized transport schemes who ask your just to let you all know some of the consultants who helped prepare the GL herm report on our economic modeling and they worked on Cambridge ahead modeling and on the government city deal funding for these schemes, along with GL hern who are a real estate consultancy. The question is how do we correlate to the work that the transport and economic work is being done by the same consultants do you want to pick up on this one Steven. I'm happy to address it. There's two elements to the questions as I suppose the first is, we have, we have worked with a set of assumptions from the transport strategy that was associated with the last local plan in starting in both looking at the performance of existing applications but also in thinking around what that strategy, which of course will continue through to 2030 and beyond in terms of its current site allocations means for infrastructure requirements. There is further work that's going to be undertaken on transport for this plan, including starting to try and think about some of the potential implications from the same behavior and movement as we've said earlier. I think if there's a concern about the being expressed in the question about the provenance of the work. The reassurance in many respects, regardless of who the consultancy is or who it is who is preparing the work is that we have a we have a competent and extensive team in Greater Cambridge, working on these issues who are working for you effectively they're all part of the local planning authority and of course all decisions of member of the service on the local plan will be informed by members. Is it, do I apologize for using experts in real estate to give us advice around real estate issues, no. We need people who are in tune with an understand the market because of the tests around delivery. We do want to produce a plan for you which has the best evidence in the best possible way. I think that's for independently challenging that examination, but if we're to develop a plan that is deliverable, which is important as we look ahead, then we need to use experts and that involves working with the property industry with specialists and those who have been working on track record and delivery, but the decisions are made by your officers working with members and ultimately assigned off by the council through for council elections. Thank you very much Steven and just to say I think it's one of the things that we've talked about a little bit before I think the term consultants often gets lost in translation because essentially the work that we are doing our studies. It's based their research based their empirical pieces of research, and actually, you know they're working through consultancy firms but it's maybe something we can do and explain on at some point I think we have talked about to give some clarity there. And so, how do these fit in so I'm streaming the plan that we're talking about now fitting with the cams Peter Burke combined authority work plan and Caroline I think I'll come back to you on actually doing some of the strategy work. Well, we have as part of our plan preparation process. It's important that we engage with a wide range of interests and that very much includes the combined authority. Under our duty to cooperate so we engage with our neighbors we engage with the combined authority counter council and a range of others. We very much mindful of the, the plans that the combined authority may have to bring forward their own strategy for the wider area and we will continue to work with them as we develop our plans in a, you know, in a cooperative manner. Thanks very much, Caroline. I'm being viewed that we've got a few only a few minutes left and I don't see any reason why we can't get these chronic questions finished on here. I'm going to go with this one on a scale of one to 10 how confident are you that any development will not further degrade or damage or already vulnerable local talk streams and the many people probably answer this question I'll say myself I think that we try not to work on a basis of being doing while working from basis of evidence and actually that is the main point because as we've all said in this process before, this is an independently examined process at the end and is it examined by the Secretary of State as we get through to it so we have to have done everything and dotted all the I don't know if anyone else wants to say anything on that particular item maybe John. So really extra another question that's coming later on I think well if the study we've published really is only an interim stage. The full water cycle strategy will now be in production and we will be looking to see what that can do to provide the certainty about how water supplies will be addressed going forward. I guess the other issue is clearly where I working with other stakeholders in water so for example water resists water resources East, who are also producing a plan for how they consider water resources can be addressed across the region. They're going to be consulting on a draft plan next year so we'll very much be wanting to work with them so they're working that our growth levels are planning for aligned with the plans they're doing to look at how water can be delivered sustainably. Thanks very much John. Okay, moving into this one, it's an interesting one when looking at other countries also recent discussion with emissions air quality would Cambridge consider the move to a Swiss style non IC cities with all the last three miles delivered by non emitting vehicles bikes and increasing process of metro tram bus for public movement. I'm sure that quite a few people would like to answer I'm going to give it to you Hannah first I'm sure you're interested in this one. Yeah, I mean I think it's a really interesting one and we've explored a lot of this actually as part of the Northeast Cambridge area action plan consultation recently where we have looked at essentially that last mile delivery question and quite a bit of detail came which does lead on a lot of this because we already have cargo bike deliveries and so forth happening in the city which is really fantastic. So, you know, it's something that we are looking at very seriously and trying to really have that that last mile approach looking at delivery hubs for instance whereby you can solidate the deliveries into a specific hub from which they can then go either people can pick them up themselves by their own bikes by foot or they can be delivered by bike. And also all of that transport that we've sort of touched on across the wider region with all the other public transport schemes here. I think it's a really interesting one because it comes to that point about carbon emissions and transport. Fundamentally, that's really fine for locations that are really compact and really well located in terms of accessibility, clearly in more fringe rural locations that can be really challenging. One of the things we're aware of is the transport emissions associated with development and not just people going to work. Not just people going to the shops picking up their deliveries going to school going to the doctors doing all the other things in daily life. So we have to make sure that we're sustainable from one of those aspects of transport not just looking at the commuting. Thanks Hannah. Are you taking account of mayor's proposals for the northern right route as opposed to the current GCP route still not settled with the northern corridor north of the A428 to be better placed to pick up the larger developments and offered west of Cambridge. And if Stephen you want to pick up on that or Caroline. Thanks, thanks Paul. Thank you for your time in terms of the work that we're doing around spatial options. The transport modeling is will be subject to sensitivity testing looking at the implications of the cam. But it isn't at this stage at a fine grain level where it relates to specific alignments. So it's not going to be. I don't think it's a point of detail at this moment in time for this part of the plan that making making process. I wish to comment in terms of the transport modeling work today but that's my understanding. Simply to confirm that the transport modeling assumes a high quality public transport connection along that corridor similar to the GCP proposals but it's not route specific at this point in the process. And so there's a few more in there, a lot of them are just statements. Well you're looking Paul I'm just going to show the next step slide so that people are aware of what happens after this point in time. So just as we've touched on this we've published all of this evidence is all on the website address I'll show you in a minute. But we also have a lot more evidence coming. So by no means is this it a lot of these has been mentioned also interim studies. So for instance the water cycle study that is a very large and ongoing and complex study which is only part way through at the moment and some of these other studies we haven't published anything really on yet. So you can look out for them next year when we go into and towards the preferred options consultation as just a reminder of that time scales we're looking at that which will be a very full public consultation and we hope we'll be able to face to face events again at some point next year as part of that. So those are the processes the preferred option is actually an extra stage the local plan that we have put in. We're not required to do that stage by the national regulations but we reviewed earlier this year and we felt that as such a large and complex plan it was important that we did add that extra stage of consultation. We'll review those findings will do more engagement as part of that. And then we will have the draft local plan so there'll be another full opportunity for everybody to comment on the plan in terms of consultation before we then finalize it for the proposed submission plan which again also has more public discussions there are many many stages where everybody can get involved share their views and we will take all of those comments on board and most importantly each of those comes with a consultation statement which actually will tell you how we've taken those comments on board and how they've influenced the shape of the plan going forward. So those are the website that's the website address and if you go to that website address and find the document library which is linked to there. So those comments we've referred to this evening are listed and readable there. And if you have any queries that's the email address to contact us on and we will answer those as quickly as we can. Paul do you want to click up on a few last questions will I just leave that up. Yeah I think we'll just maybe take two more questions off of here because I think that there's only two that I can see that actually probably questions and good to know what those are in terms of judging developer landowner can deliver on their proposal. Trumping in as an area police reports has become one of the worst three wards do not cite this as plan as for thank you, but the developers have refused the developers approved and not held to account how can this be developed with planning reviews such as local plan on deciding which sites to engage with. Stephen, I'm going to pass that one to you to comment on that by myself. Thank you, Paul. I mean, it is, it is a challenge that planning can't fix everything. And one of the things that, but one of the things that I think go hand in glove with the definition of quality development is thinking about quality implementation by the partners that get involved in the development process. So we are trying to give some thought about quality standards and indeed, whilst it's difficult that the planning process can't put a policy in about which developers develop which sites, I expect that there will be further exploration of things around management of sites the effective curating a place not least because of the complexity of achieving things like net zero carbon and the new infrastructure associated with public realm and the management of public realm as well as vehicle charging etc that's going to need to be put in place for some of those newer schemes coming forwards. So I haven't got an answer for it right now. Obviously, one always hopes that that the good publicity available online helps people to make informed choices about their future, their future purchase. And we are aware of some of those challenges that whether or not me and the planning team can solve the behavior of some of the developers is is probably questionable on our own. I think working together, we might want to think about that further. Thank you. So I'll just do one last really quick one. I know we've gone over quite a bit but I think then we've covered pretty much most of those things off. I've got a question around the water resources east consultation. I'm not sure this is what we can necessarily answer as well, but it was raised yesterday. So will there be an official consultation on the regional water plan for water resources east and Stephen or Karen. I'm not sure whether you know that at this stage. I don't think we know specifically. I would, I would, they have a very comprehensive website which sets out their timetable and what they're planning in terms of preparing that particular plan. I noticed also in the questions there was a point about whether there's an independent review process just to point out that our particular study was subject to an independent academic review and you can find a summary of that process in the document on our website. Yeah, and I think that will be continuing throughout the study as we go forward. I'm going to comment because there's a question that's talking at the end about the status of water resources east. Jonathan I don't know if you can add anything to it but my understanding is is that in terms of the question who has appointed them the government have identified that actually water resort regional water resource management plans should happen through these bodies. And, you know, please be reassured as Jonathan highlighted that the independent review that we're that we've built into our process does at least seek to make sure that the strategy that will come out from water resources east next summer is is robustly tested and considered by ourselves as we also seek to engage with some of the issues around infrastructure delivery on water and related matters. Absolutely. So I think I'd like to start to thank all of the team for being here today but I'd like to thank all of you for coming and some really really good questions tonight and I hope that we've been able to answer some of the concerns or issues that you have. And as the website has, please remember is an interim stage, and there is also a website where you, sorry, an email address where you can get hold of the team. And that otherwise, I hope you have a lovely evening and thank you all for attending. We'll see you again soon.