Question 32. Do you think we should plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government, to provide flexibility to support the growing economy?
Government should be encouraging economic growth elsewhere in the country in order to promote greater equality across UK society.
No uploaded files for public display
It’s futile setting economic growth targets without ensuring the environment can sustain the extra drain on natural resources the larger number of homes will consume. Since the water table is not able to meet the current needs, how can you plan for more houses?
No uploaded files for public display
We DO NOT NEED TO ACCEPT this growth. We CAN and we MUST reject it, because we haven't got the water infrastructure to serve this kind of growth.
No uploaded files for public display
Our infrastructure is already under strain.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. If the area’s real economic potential is to be met, then a higher level of house building is required. Notwithstanding the total level of housebuilding, it is felt that the distribution of such housing is equally important if climate change impacts are to be better addressed.
No uploaded files for public display
As noted in our response to Question 24, the Trumpington Residents’ Association believes that there should be a fuller assessment of the impact and consequences of different levels of economic growth and the evidence that gives for the number of homes. Given that the new plan is rolling forward 10 years after the current plan, we accept that there will be a need for more homes than currently planned for the period up to 2031 and that there may be a need for more than those given under the standard method. However, we feel very strongly that the Councils and residents cannot agree to the highest projection given in the analysis by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Commission. Anything approaching an additional 66,700 homes in the plan period would be immensely detrimental to Greater Cambridge. See also our response to Question 31.
No uploaded files for public display
• To provide a higher number of homes presupposes that the economy will grow as predicted, and is desirable. This is highly contentious and ignores the question of whether wider resource restrictions will eventually limit growth. It also ignores the question of whether such growth will result in a Greater Cambridge that maintains the present quality of life (let alone an improvement to it), and the quality of the the built and natural environment. Will we have shot the goose that laid the golden egg? • An increase in the Greater Cambridge housing stock of 50% in just 20 years is not remotely desirable, and may not even be deliverable.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. As set out in the response to Question 31, upward adjustments to the minimum figure derived from the standard method are required to take into account growth strategies, strategic infrastructure improvements and housing affordability in Greater Cambridgeshire. The National Infrastructure Commission, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership acknowledge and support the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area, and consider that there is a need to substantially increase housing delivery in order to support that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist.
No uploaded files for public display
Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by St John’s College, Cambridge to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The College is a significant landowner in and around Cambridge and accordingly needs to make the necessary representations to the Councils in respect of its assets and on other relevant planning policy issues that will arise in the context of any new development plan for the two administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. A key function of any new Local Plan must be to identify the number of new homes required in the area and identify the locations for such growth. With changes to national planning policy which include a new way of calculating the number of homes needed to meet the needs in the area (the “standard method”) this serves to identify a minimum figure within the Local Plan. At present the calculations indicate a need for 40,900 homes for the suggested plan period of 2017-2040 but such data would necessarily need to be updated as time progresses and the date for Submission in 2022 provides a focus for such analysis. One of the weaknesses of the “standard method” is that it does not attempt to predict changing economic circumstances or other external factors and thus it can only really be a starting point for Local Plan projections. National Planning Policy Guidance advises that Local Planning Authorities can consider making provision for more homes than the standard method minimum and we certainly advocate this for the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In the circumstances where Cambridge continues to be a growth area nationally and where new growth has been successfully assimilated into the local environment whilst retaining the very qualities that Cambridge seeks to protect then there is no justification for artificially dampening down the potential that the Cambridge area has to accommodate such new growth. In such a context the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER)and other similar reports have identified a vision of doubling the total economic output of the combined authority area over a 25 year period. When all of the relevant Councils signed up to the devolution deal to create the Combined Authority then they have also committed themselves to promoting policies which support this level of economic growth. It follows that significant economic growth puts pressure on the housing market and consequently the CPIER now looks at an indicative total of 66,700 homes in the plan period from 2017-2040. The implication of looking at the higher figure which has envisaged housing growth for the plan period effectively means the identification of a further 30,000 homes coming forward in the Greater Cambridge area. The College supports higher growth figures on the basis of the need for a range of new housing to cope with the perceived economic growth that is anticipated up to 2040 and the commitments that the Local Authorities have made to play an important part in both the local and national economies in the circumstances where Cambridge remains and important vital component part.
No uploaded files for public display
No. It is not explained in the consultation how providing an additional 30,000 homes “provides flexibility”. Having such a high target surely means that it is more likely that a five-year housing land supply will not be met at some time or times during the life of the Plan, at which point the GCP area would be vulnerable to speculative proposals from developers. To deliver such large numbers also suggests concentration on developing new settlements in order to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure, which could be contentious depending on potential locations. Development of the North East Cambridge or Cambridge Airport sites are not likely to be opposed by much of the GCP area outside Cambridge. The higher target is likely to result in the disappearance of many greenfield hectares and the urbanisation of what are currently rural locations in the GCP area.
No uploaded files for public display
(1) Strongly disagree (this option not offered) (2) Despite the sub-region’s potential for continued growth at a rate significantly above the national average, due to the attractiveness of Cambridge as a place to live and work, to plan for a greater level of growth over the next Plan period would be unsustainable and would impact negatively on the very qualities that make the area a world class location for education, research and business. It would undermine environmental, economic and social planning objectives as the negative impacts of an overheating economy, already affecting the sub-area, worsen. (3) Taking the need to address existing negative externalities of growth in account, the standard method for calculating the minimum number of homes is appropriate. Higher numbers will most certainly lead to decreased productivity and cannot be achieved at the same time as sustainable development objectives. (4) Further, it would sacrifice much Best and Most Versatile agricultural land; the rainwater run-off would significantly increase; the already depleted and suffering aquifers would be further challenged; the loss of biodiversity would be significant.
No uploaded files for public display
What growing economy??!! We absolutely CANNOT have a growing economy. Infinite growth depletes the planet's finite resources - clearly! Cambridge will need more accommodation though, to house the 1000s of climate refugees who will soon be fleeing the flooded Fens.
No uploaded files for public display
It is critical that the local plan supports and delivers the homes needed to support the local economy. Greater Cambridge for too long has seen employment growth outstrip the housing planned for, which has resulted in severe negative social and environmental effects. It is vital therefore that the amount of new housing planned for is based on economic aspirations rather. Based on the evidence to date, the minimum housing requirement to be planned for is 2,900 a year.
No uploaded files for public display
I strongly disagree and I note you do not give us that option. I object to having to vote for an option that I DO NOT agree with. WE should not build the proposed number let alone more.
No uploaded files for public display
Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (Grosvenor) to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options Consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Grosvenor Britain and Ireland (Grosvenor) have land interests at the Abbey Stadium, home to Cambridge United Football Club and consequently it is entirely appropriate at this stage to raise a number of issues in response to particular questions posed within the consultation document. It is entirely correct that both Councils recognise that housing is one of the most important issues to address and one that in particular will be the focus for many representations during the formulation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In the context of the acknowledgement that it remains an absolutely key issue in this area, it is entirely appropriate that any assessment of housing must extend beyond the consideration of meeting the minimum needs as calculated as using the “standard method”. Using the Government’s approach results in the local housing needs assessment for circa 1,800 dwelling per annum. However it is also important to recognise that Government states within the PPG that this is the minimum number of houses that must be planned for and it does not attempt to predict the impact of other factors. It is clear therefore that the 1,800 dwellings per annum is only a starting point. In an area which has strong economic growth and aspirations to maintain and extend such growth as well as the affordability of its housing stock continuing to decline, it is important for any new Local Plan for the Greater Cambridge area to establish a housing requirement that seeks to address both of these concerns. It is the case that 1,800 dwelling per annum using the Standard Method will not be sufficient to support the economic growth expectations of Greater Cambridge in the context where the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) sets a compelling case for higher levels of housing growth within the Greater Cambridge area having regard to the commitment to double economic growth. It is entirely appropriate that in the circumstances where Cambridge is a significant driver of the national economy that it simply cannot rely on accepting the minimum number of houses required by the standard methodology and therefore not taking into account the significance of economy and other factors. It is evident that the Greater Cambridge area has provided too little housing in recent years and a substantial increase in the delivery of new housing is necessary and accordingly we would support the option of delivering at least 2,900 per annum within this Local Plan.
No uploaded files for public display
The Government’s standard method uses a formula to identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for, in a way which addresses projected household growth and historic under-supply. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are clear that the targets calculated in this way are the minimum which should be adopted, however, and use of the standard methodology is not mandatory - Government guidance makes it clear that alternative methods can be used by exception if it is felt that circumstances warrant an alternative approach. There is a clear case for an alternative approach for Greater Cambridge as the standard methodology does not attempt to predict changing economic circumstances. If used to determine the level of housing need for Greater Cambridge the consequences are likely to be: o Worsening house price to earnings ratios o Employment growth that continues to has outpace housing delivery o Unmet housing needs in and close to Cambridge leading to long commuting distances and journey times o Continued recruitment, retention and productivity problems for the University and other employers The current Local Plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, in aggregate, allocate 33,500 new homes between 2011-2031 (1,675 p.a.). The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) team consider that under the standard methodology prescribed by Government, there would be a need for 40,917 homes between 2017 and 2040 or 1779 p.a. CPIER’s Key Recommendation #5 was that "There should be a review of housing requirements based on the potential for higher growth in employment than currently forecast (by the East of England Forecasting Model)." More recently, Iceni Projects Ltd has prepared a Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (see the separate submission by the North Barton Road Landowners Group), which explores three scenarios for future economic performance: - If the Greater Cambridge economy grew at the rate it has done in the short-term since 2010, employment would grow at 3.3% pa and it would need 5,727 homes pa; - The long-term growth rate of 2.2% growth per annum, based on trends since 1981, would require 3,108 homes per annum; - planning should be based on a blended growth rate of 2.8% pa, based on short-term trends to 2031 and longer-term trends thereafter. This aligns with the recommendation from the CPIER; and sees the rate of employment growth in Greater Cambridge aligned to the intentions of the Devolution Agreement and Local Industrial Strategy for the area. Aligning the housing and economic strategies is common planning practice, with Iceni’s analysis showing that this would require provision of 101,200 homes (4,400 dpa) over the 2017-40 plan period across the Greater Cambridge area.
No uploaded files for public display
It is agreed that if Greater Cambridge were to realise the ambition of doubling GVA then a substantially higher number of homes would be required than the minimum required by government. It will be important to ensure that the Local Plan strikes a balance between the level of housing to be provided with anticipated economic growth and adequate infrastructure provision. It will essential to have adequate evidence to demonstrate the deliverability of the economic ambitions and the necessary supporting infrastructure to ensure whatever housing number is selected can be delivered in a sustainable manner within Greater Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Cambridge is growing too fast - it must be controlled and other parts of the nation encouraged to absorb some of this growth. Otherwise the whole area will be concreted over.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
There must be flexibility and not simply in relation to the number of homes but also, flexibility to the wider housing strategy. This should include inter alia, flexibility with village frameworks and how these are defined / could be amended in the future. Not only would this provide flexibility with the spatial strategy and allow policies to ‘identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive’ (NPPF, paragraph 78) but it would also ensure a mix of sites are brought forward and help to speed up housebuilding. Development should be considered and consistent with a Local Plan and providing flexibility for important infrastructure such as housing will allow the Greater Cambridge area to build on the success of the region as an economic powerhouse and avoid the situation created through the success of the Cambridge / Peterborough devolution deal when demand outstripped supply – ie, a range of size and location of sites are required.
No uploaded files for public display
Altogether it has been estimated that more than 30,000 extra homes, above those already in the pipeline, could be built in the Greater Cambridge area by 2040. Grosvenor and USS support a plan for a higher number of homes to support the growing economy. However, it should be complimented with additional infrastructure and public services so that it does not compromise quality of life. Both Councils should carefully consider the priorities of their area to ensure local needs are being met. For example, a top priority for the South Cambridgeshire District Council is to reduce commuting travel and ensure the provision of homes specifically targets essential local workers. In addition, the demographic profile is also changing, with the proportion of those aged over 65 significantly increasing. Therefore, the Councils should promote a range of housing options across all tenures to accommodate for the growth of people and families. The CPIER makes it clear that the area can plan for significant employment and housing growth successfully but acknowledges that each area needs to carry out their own detailed modelling work which will form part of a concrete evidence base. This in turn helps to inform the strategic planning requirements of the area. Higher levels of housing, where delivered in the most sustainable locations, such as at Trumpington, will have positive impacts on social, environmental and economic factors.
No uploaded files for public display
It would be clearer if the 5th option above was "No, strongly disagree". That's what I mean. Continued "economic growth" is not at all guaranteed. There are huge uncertainties towards 2040, not least the accelerating climate crisis which may well lead to another recession. "economic growth" is not necessarily A Good Thing. There are better ways to measure success such as wellbeing, health and happiness.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Please refer to the Barton Wilmore Greater Cambridge Housing Delivery Study for supporting evidence. In summary, in order to support the forecast and projected economic growth over the next 20 years, housing need should reflect the upper housing range recommended in the CPIER 2018. Equating to around 2,900 homes each year for Greater Cambridge, an uplift of 71% housing supply compared to the current objectively assessed need, this must be the Authorities’ target to ensure that housing delivery over the next plan period is sufficient to support the growth of the economy. Planning for this higher housing target is required for the GCLP to meet the requirements of Paragraphs 59, 60 and 61 of the NPPF.
No uploaded files for public display
It is imperative that the Plan allows for more than the minimum housing requirement in order to safeguard delivery, help meet demand and keep prices at more affordable levels. It is almost inevitable that there will be delays associated with the delivery of larger proposals such as Cambridge East and therefore to ensure supply is maintained and the local markets are not flooded the Plan should allocate small-scale development to all settlements. Allocations such as the five dwellings proposed on the land at 13 Newton Road, Little Shelford will deliver much needed housing across the Plan area supporting local communities and existing services and facilities as well as hopefully moving towards a critical mass that would encourage new services, facilities and employment to invest in the existing settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
No! A large part of the problem is growth in itself, which is putting pressure on infrastructure and house prices, with more resources to address infrastructure going to the better off areas. There should be recognition that it is time for growth to stop, or at lest to slow considerably, before we foul our own nest. Government should be told that the Cambridge goose will die of overwork, and stop producing golden eggs. We should be resisting the current requirements, not offering to go higher.
No uploaded files for public display
You shouldn't be just be planning for more homes, you need to be planning for the impacts on our transport and community infrastructure and facilities. If you can't accommodate growth with our infrastructure then you shouldn't even think about new homes. If these homes/developments cannot be built at zero carbon standard with sustainable (no car) transport then they must not be built.
No uploaded files for public display
YES, somewhat agree The reason why the view is not strongly agree as it would be dependent on market signals. It is expected that when economic and affordability signals are factored then more homes should be planned rather than the minimum. Within the market signals evidence base two areas should be highlighted for scrutiny. 1. The concealed household for the under 35 year olds not considered in housing need. This is the very vibrant economic base for the Greater Cambridge Area that is unusual which needs to be fully considered. 2. If we are to attract and retain a strong economically active workforce what should the affordability measure be to spend on housing costs as a function of income. Whilst the Plan period is to 2040 the household projections could change significantly depending on the final outcome of the independence process from Europe. There should be review process shorter than the statutory requirement.
No uploaded files for public display
No It’s unlikely that growth will continue as it has .
No uploaded files for public display
There are significant infrastructure requirements being imposed on new developments in the outlying Cambridge area and consequently the viability of schemes to deliver all of the relevant obligations (especially relating to proportions of affordable housing) is challenging. It is envisaged that any new Local Plan is going to continue to seek appropriate financial contributions in the context of the current legislation. With affordable dwellings generally coming forward as a result of meeting policy requirements as part of the approach to market housing, it follows that a commitment to providing more homes in terms of overall numbers, provides the opportunity to secure more affordable homes. In an area with an acute affordable housing shortage, it is imperative that affordability remains integral to planning policy over the plan period, not only as an important contribution to meet local needs but as part of a sector that needs to meet the demand of an expanding economy.
No uploaded files for public display
The question is can the Cambridge area continue with these levels of housing growth without degrading its environment, further stifling its economic success which is built on its attractiveness as a place to live and work and respond positively to climate heating?
No uploaded files for public display