Question 5. Do you think we have identified the right cross-boundary issues and initiatives that affect ourselves and neighbouring areas?
Summary: Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Mr John Jarman, Mr Geoff Jarman and Ms Coral Henshaw to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of Chestnut Road, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Full text: Agree 2.1 Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Mr John Jarman, Mr Geoff Jarman and Ms Coral Henshaw to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of Chestnut Road, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth. 2.2. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF (2019) states that “Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy.” 2.3. We welcome the identification of housing and transport as key cross-boundary issues. However, it is imperative the Councils consider economic growth and existing economic centres outside of Greater Cambridge when preparing their growth strategy, and recognise the role towns and employment sites in adjacent authorities play in servicing communities in Greater Cambridge and also the role Greater Cambridge can play in servicing them. 2.4. One such location is the town of Royston which although in North Hertfordshire sits on the border with South Cambridgeshire. It is noted in paragraph 13.291 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan that the existing employment area in Royston is currently thriving feeding off both the Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire economies. Johnson Matthey, one of the biggest employers in the region with between 2-3,000 employees, is based in the north west of the town. 2.5. With its good transport connections to South Cambridgeshire via the A10, A505 and A1198, nearby villages play an important role in servicing the town and it is important this role is recognised when considering cross boundary issues.
No uploaded files for public display
2.16. It is essential not just for the prosperity of those living in the area, but also for the wider region, that Greater Cambridge plays its part in delivering economic and housing growth. 2.17. Support is given to the approach to consultation with wider partnerships, and places particular emphasis on the need to deliver the growth associated with the Oxford Cambridge Arc. Engagement with key cross boundary stakeholders will require co-ordination with the combined Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Authority together with the County Council and other Local Authority neighbours.
No uploaded files for public display
Pigeon generally agrees with the cross boundary issues identified. However, under the transport heading, and having regard for the importance of the prospective east-west rail and expressway initiatives across the Oxford to Cambridge Arc we would have expected nearby authorities at Bedford and Milton Keynes to be included on collaboration on strategic cross-boundary issues, rather than limiting the process to the administrative boundary of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In addition, and with this partly in mind, the cross-boundary issues should also include employment needs given the need for liaison with neighbouring authorities within the various economic corridors and the Cambridge Travel to Work area itself.
No uploaded files for public display
The cross-boundary issues are not yet sufficiently developed. The “corridors” of development are at least four-fold: Oxford-Cambridge; London-Stansted-Cambridge; Cambridge-Norwich; and Cambridge-Peterborough. And the relationships with neighbouring authorities must encompass the ring of market towns, and of potential new settlements, including in North Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Peterborough, East Cambs, Fenland and Suffolk. Given that the territory of each of these authorities will, to some extent, form part of the Travel To Work Area of the Cambridge sub-region, the ‘duty to cooperate’ must imply an active engagement with them as an integral aspect of this Plan-making process.
No uploaded files for public display
3.3 The government announced on 30 January 2020 the preferred route for the central section of East West Rail (EWR) which is set to see a significant improvement to connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. The preferred Route E is to run via Cambourne which is just four miles south of Papworth Everard. Above: EWR Preferred Route E 3.4 As a key transport infrastructure project, the implications of this route should be factored into the spatial strategy for the district. This route would help improve the connectivity to Papworth and supports the case for allocating a village extension at Papworth by improving opportunities for residents to travel by sustainable modes, for at least a major part of their journey. Opportunities to provide a dedicated cycleway to Cambourne could be delivered to support the Papworth village extension, encouraging sustainable modes of travel and healthier lifestyle choices for the local community.
No uploaded files for public display
3.89 Issues in Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. 3.90 The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils’ agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. 3.91 Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential. 3.92 The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any Plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities to assist in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area.
No uploaded files for public display
3.89 Issues in Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. 3.90 The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils’ agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. 3.91 Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential. 3.92 The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any Plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities to assist in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area.
No uploaded files for public display
Issues in the Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the CPIER include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential. However, in order to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to meet all types of accommodation and tenures. This also includes making provision in Local Plans for a spread and distribution of sites throughout the plan area in the most sustainable locations. The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities, such as Uttlesford DC, to assist not only in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area but also in the provision for and delivery of key infrastructure to support a more sustainable and zero carbon future
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. The main cross-boundary issues between Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire in planning for future development will inevitably be the needs and delivery for housing, jobs and infrastructure.
No uploaded files for public display
21. Any strategy which progresses must adequately respond to the needs of both Cambridge City Council (CCC) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and provide a sufficient supply and mix of sites to deliver growth needs across both areas. 22. Therefore, reliance on a single growth strategy such as Edge of Cambridge must be avoided, and a mixed and flexible approach should be adopted to ensure housing need is delivered not only for Cambridge but also to serve South Cambridgeshire. This means there needs to be a step away from the existing preference for locating development, as set out in adopted Plans, for SCC and CCC. At present, the priority is to deliver new housing on the edge of Cambridge, followed by within new settlements and lastly in the rural area at Rural Centres. Therefore, consideration of extensions to established settlements such as Cambourne which benefit from sustainable accessibility to existing services, jobs and infrastructure, should be given the same level of consideration as edge of Cambridge sites as a growth solution. 23. Furthermore, Cambourne itself developed as a new settlement and has since gained town status. Further expansion of this sustainable settlement should be considered as an additional or alternative option to delivering entire new settlements. This is particularly the case for Cambourne which is in the pipeline to benefit from significant new transport infrastructure in the form of a new rail station for the East West Rail and the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro into Cambridge City Centre.
No uploaded files for public display
3.4 The new Local Plan needs to align with the national and regional strategic planning for the Greater Cambridge area and beyond. In particular, the new Local Plan must include a commitment to contribute towards harnessing the potential of the Cambridge – Oxford Arc for Greater Cambridge by delivering new homes, jobs and infrastructure in the right locations to support the wider growth agenda. It should also aim to support the Combined Authority’s NonStatutory Spatial Planning Growth strategy target of doubling economic outputs, over the next 25 years. 3.5 Paragraph 22 of the NPPF 2019 advises that strategic policies should anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure. The draft strategic policies should set out clear strategic priorities for the area, including the important cross-boundary issues and how this are addressed. In addition, the new Local Plan will need to build in sufficient flexibility to respond to development in cross-boundary infrastructure. 3.6 Many of the cross-boundary issues are still evolving and each stage of the plan’s preparation will need to respond accordingly. To achieve this, the Councils’ must effectively collaborate with the Combined Authority, Greater Cambridge Partnership and the County Council to ensure that all strategic, cross-boundary matters are aligned, beyond the Councils’ statutory duty to cooperate. We look forward to seeing statement of common grounds between all parties; these should be made publicly available throughout the plan-making process to provide transparency (as per paragraph 27 of the NPPF).
No uploaded files for public display
A. Given that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan is a joint venture between Cambridge City Council (CCC) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) it is vital that a strategy progresses which adequately responds to the needs of both local authorities and identifies a sufficient supply and mix of sites to deliver growth needs across both areas. B. As such, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on a single growth strategy such as Edge of Cambridge or new settlements in order to respond to housing need. There is demand for housing across all locations in the Plan area including established settlements and villages. Therefore, a range of types and locations for development is required to robustly respond to demand and ensure that enough housing comes forward and in the right locations. C. The existing preference for locating development, as set out in adopted Plans for SCC and CCC, is on the edge of Cambridge in the first instance followed by within new settlements and lastly in the rural area at Rural Centres. Therefore, a step away from this approach is required to ensure that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed as encouraged by the NPPF (paragraph 59). D. We see it as being key that the plan recognise the impact of infrastructure and investment not only in the Greater Cambridgeshire area but also beyond. This is particularly the case in the Central Bedfordshire/Bedford area where East West rail will have an impact on the future spatial strategy. Growth towards this area, in places like Gamlingay, needs to be considered in the context of this investment and growth.
No uploaded files for public display
Agree 2.1 Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Mr John Jarman, Mr Geoff Jarman and Ms Coral Henshaw to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of Chestnut Road, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth. 2.2. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF (2019) states that “Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy.” 2.3. We welcome the identification of housing and transport as key cross-boundary issues. However, it is imperative the Councils consider economic growth and existing economic centres outside of Greater Cambridge when preparing their growth strategy, and recognise the role towns and employment sites in adjacent authorities play in servicing communities in Greater Cambridge and also the role Greater Cambridge can play in servicing them. 2.4. One such location is the town of Royston which although in North Hertfordshire sits on the border with South Cambridgeshire. It is noted in paragraph 13.291 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan that the existing employment area in Royston is currently thriving feeding off both the Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire economies. Johnson Matthey, one of the biggest employers in the region with between 2-3,000 employees, is based in the north west of the town. 2.5. With its good transport connections to South Cambridgeshire via the A10, A505 and A1198, nearby villages play an important role in servicing the town and it is important this role is recognised when considering cross boundary issues. Summary of Comments: Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Mr John Jarman, Mr Geoff Jarman and Ms Coral Henshaw to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of Chestnut Road, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth
No uploaded files for public display
Summary: Cross-boundary issues and initiatives should expand to invite a more circular approach to resource use, such as energy, water and materials. Full text: We commend the priorisation of sustainability issues for the emerging local plan, in particualr the focus on zero carbon, biodiversity, green infrastructure and wellbeing. However, we feel that the cross-boundary strategic issues and initiatives need to take a more circular approach. In particular: + 'Carbon offsetting and renewable energy' should include 'Carbon reduction' before offsetting, to invite opportunities for regional zero carbon generation such as energy from waste, grid energy distribution efficiencies, energy sharing opportunities such as land use planning for waste heat sharing, energy storage at scale for both regional energy generation and aggregated individual renewable energy (Virtual Power Stations). + 'Water, including supply, quality, waste water and flood risk' should include recycling to invite opportunities for regional waste water recycling instead of limiting the cycle to treatment and disposal. We would also encourage the inclusion of 'Material efficiency and waste reduction' to encourage cross-boundary sharing of material resources, increase opportunities for upcycling of waste, reduction of the embodied carbon from construction and consumables by reducing transportation distances, creating new local economies, and building regional databases that include supply chain and environmental information e.g. material passports.
No uploaded files for public display
no comment
No uploaded files for public display
2.07 We agree that the right cross-boundary issues and initiatives have been identified, although would also add Economic Development, given that housing, jobs and infrastructure are so closely inter-linked and often carry cross-boundary significance. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Report outlined how certain authority-areas in the region offered very different economic opportunities, such as agriculture in the Fens (Fenland, Huntingdonshire, East Cambridgeshire), Knowledge-based industry in Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire etc, and harnessing all of these different strengths will benefit the wider region. Accordingly, collaboration with neighbouring authorities is important, as reflected in the Board membership of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.
No uploaded files for public display
"4.7 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan aims to create key economic corridors that will be impact the planned growth. This is shown in Figure 7 that identifies the key economic corridors, namely The Oxford-Cambridge Arc, London-Stansted-Cambridge and the Cambridge-Norwich tech corridor as shown in the following extract: 4.8 The impact of this anticipated growth would extend well beyond the immediate adjoining authorities boundaries. The Government has endorsed the Commission’s report, Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc which includes an ambition for up to one million high-quality new homes by 2050. It has also committed to completing the East West Rail link and an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, and to achieving sustainable growth in the Arc while improving the environment for future generations. 4.9 We agree that the right cross boundary issues have been highlighted but the engagement with all the relevant stakeholders goes well beyond working with neighbouring authorities. This needs to be considered as part of the wider impact on the area."
No uploaded files for public display
"A Local Plan must demonstrate that it has discharged its statutory Duty to Co-Operate with neighbouring authorities and other relevant organisations to ensure that it is sound. Without due consideration of crossboundary issues, including housing requirements and economic functions, a Plan will not have demonstrated its requirements as contained within the Duty to Co-Operate. Although the Greater Cambridge Local Plan is at an early stage of its preparation, it is vital that is able to demonstrate that it has engaged and taken into appropriate consideration cross-boundary issues. These issues will influence the strategies of the new Plan, including the approach in achieving residential and other types of development across the Local Plan area. Those issues which have been identified within the Issues and Options document address significant considerations which will inform the trajectory of the Plan during the preparation process. It is considered that those areas of concern relating to cross-boundary factors are appropriate. However, engagement with housing need and the cross-boundary influences that impact on this need should be strongly considered as a central component of the spatial strategy prepared as part of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Although it is recognised that the Cambridge HMA is relatively self-contained, with a travel to work area similar in size and pattern to the housing market area itself, this should not result in a Plan which reduces the significance in cross-boundary impacts on the ability of the Planning Authorities in delivering their housing needs. For instance, given that the neighbouring authorities are generally unconstrained, with no Green Belt, it is likely that they will be able to meet their own needs within their own jurisdiction. As such, there may be lesser need for Greater Cambridge to assist in accommodating cross-boundary housing numbers. However, it is considered that the emerging Local Plan must take into account the impacts that a rapidly growing local economy will have on these cross-boundary issues. This includes the result of strategic infrastructure projects, such as East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway which will open the housing market up further to additional influxes of people commuting to the expanding job market within Cambridge. This in turn will have a material impact on strategic residential need as a result of increasing demand and exacerbate housing costs. A careful approach to cross-boundary considerations is therefore required, to ensure that the new Plan remains responsive to these issues given that they arise from outside the Local Plan area and are beyond the control of the Local Authorities. Summary of Comments: The list of cross-boundary considerations is appropriate, however the Local Plan should acknowledge the degree of importance and signifiance to each."
No uploaded files for public display
We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. The main cross-boundary issues between Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire in planning for future development will inevitably be the needs and delivery for housing, jobs and infrastructure.
No uploaded files for public display
Any strategy which progresses must adequately respond to the needs of both Cambridge City Council (CCC) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and provide a sufficient supply and mix of sites to deliver growth needs across both areas. Therefore, reliance on a single growth strategy such as Edge of Cambridge or new settlements must be avoided, and a mixed and flexible approach should be adopted to ensure housing demand is met in all locations across the Plan area including established settlements and villages. Allocating a range of types and locations for development will ensure there is a robust supply which will enable a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed as encouraged by the NPPF (paragraph 59). This means there needs to be a step away from the existing preference for locating development, as set out in adopted Plans for SCC and CCC. At present, the priority is to deliver new housing on the edge of Cambridge, followed by within new settlements and lastly in the rural area at Rural Centres
No uploaded files for public display
Issues in Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils’ agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any Plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities to assist in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area.
No uploaded files for public display