Question 44. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge on land outside the Green Belt?

Preferably along the coming railroad net work including businesses and smaller industrial areas

Sounds sensible.

This is a reasonable way to achieve growth, as the infrastructure is already in place, provided the urban environment can sustain the growth in residents. It also needs to provide amenities such as parks and community amenities to ensure the quality of life of existing residents is not reduced.

We would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds, but we do support appropriate development in certain villages. Overall, we do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development on the fringe of Cambridge (within the current Green Belt – see below); 2) Development at suitable villages i.e. those with an appropriate service base, or those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and railway stations and those in close proximity to Cambridge - e.g. Ickleton - 1.6km from Great Chesterford railway station and 1m from the Wellcome Genome Campus with circa 2,600 staff); and 3) The likely housing requirements suggest that a development strategy involving both of these is likely to be needed.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the development of the Airport for housing, as long as this is to a high standard and accompanied by a good local centre and essential infrastructure, including transport links. We are concerned that the existing city centre is already overcrowded and has limited capacity to support a growing population, so that a development on the scale of the Airport needs to have the full range of additional facilities to support a new community comparable in size to Northstowe.

• Whether sites on the edge of Cambridge, not in the Green Belt, are suitable for development must depend on an analysis of each potential site. Cambridge Airport, for example, if developed, must include a significant amount of space for parkland and large wilder, biodiverse areas. This is essential if the Local Plan themes of ‘climate change’ and ‘biodiversity and green spaces’ are to be more than just aspirations. The impact on nearby villages must also be fully considered. Fulbourn and its Fen Nature Reserve is only a ten minute drive from the airport site. There is the potential for an increase in the visitors (especially dog walkers) to the reserve for which its access, car parking and the site itself is ill-equipped. Commercial dog walkers can already sometimes be seen with numerous dogs, running free in the woodland and the meadows of the SSSI. • Therefore, the new Local Plan must also plan for other areas of natural landscape to be created away from the development site, but within easy reach, to spread the demand. This may well mean that agricultural land needs to be used for this purpose, and this cost must be recognised.

Development of Cambridge Airport is supported. Development outside the green belt that would create a ring or arc of urban development in rural areas is not supported.

If anywhere needs to be used for development, I would prefer for it to be on land outside of the Green Belt. I think that the Green Belt should be protected and not developed. Developing on land outside of the Green Belt would require a strengthening of public transport, such as better bus services with more regular services, more routes and more affordable fares but I think this is required in any case for the current communities in and around Cambridge.

We are unable to answer Q42 as it requires that the options are ranked. We do not considered that any one of these options in Q42 is likely to provide for the development needs of Greater Cambridge. Rather elements of each part of the hierarchy are likely to be required. Efficient use should be made of all areas for development, subject to design quality being maintained. Development should be located in areas where it can support maximum travel by non-car modes, close to jobs and series and along public transport corridors. That is the case whether they be urban extensions, new settlements or village growth. Some development in key village location will help support services and meet local affordable housing needs to support communities. Such an approach is not about “dispersal” it is about sporting local communities.

Whatever is best for the environment overall and encourages wellbeing, instead of economic growth.

Development to the east of Cambridge offers opportunities for provision of sustainable development close to employment and services. It offers benefits in terms of minimising carbon dioxide emissions by linking into existing and potentially improved public transport networks.

The University supports the proposed development of Cambridge Airport for mixed-use housing and employment development in principle. It will be important for the Local Plan to be based on realistic expectations about the timing of availability of the site, the rate of development and the total amount of development that could come forward during the Plan period.

Cambridge Airport should be protected for longer term development as it has been identified a suitable site for housing and meets sustainable development objectives.

I'm in support of developing the land around Cambridge Airport but it must be done as sustainably as possible with the highest quality walking and cycle routes and public transport links. A substantial area of the land should be allocated for a new Cambridge forest and any development should follow a 'landscape-first' design with green corridors and spaces at its heart.

Urban creep of Cambridge has to be subject to approval in the affected village’s Neighbourhood Plan

Only if not massively detrimental to the environment as not sure what land this would be.

It’s already underway in a big way with Northstowe and Waterbeach both providing thousands of new homes. I am unaware if green belt was released for either of these large scale developments, but I’m not in favour of eating into green belt.

Shouldn't do this and encourage commuting through the Green Belt if there were sites in the current Greenbelt that were easier to deliver with sustainable transport to the key employment sites.

No. Keep Cambridge a compact city. See previous answers.

Some development would be appropriate.

Supportive as long as (and essentially) there are cycling and public transport links. Completely reject it if only accessible by car.

No comment.

Southern and Regional Developments(Joscelyn) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport as inappropriate. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority, the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Furthermore, the Airport site is currently fully occupied by a thriving local business that supports the economic vibrancy of the location and provides employment. The occupation by a thriving local business that has been resident on the site for an established period of time should not be ignored, particularly in respect of the ability of the business to successfully relocate and recreate the favourable business conditions that they have been in place. These consideration mean that this site opportunity is less likely to be available. Development of the site could provide a significant boost in housing numbers on a site that would not harm the Green Belt, given there is no certainty attached to when it will become available, it would not be appropriate for the site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan and not a component of the true spatial strategy to deliver housing for the identified need across the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

Development at Cambridge Airport has the potential to provide for the reuse of land suitable for development. However, this can only be considered in combination with other alternatives due to the uncertainty around timescales. In order to continue to support the existing business needs within Cambridge the gap for skilled manufacturing and development for the Science and Technology sector exists now. There is an immediate need for space for this type of employment use, and this need will only increase within the next 10 – 15 years. Development at Cambridge Airport for the type of employment uses put forward by Trinity College Cambridge cannot be viewed as a short term or even mid-term solution.

2.59 Referring to Q42, the development should be dispersed throughout the villages to not over burden a single area with additional demands.

Southern and Regional Developments (Cottenham) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport as inappropriate. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority, the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Furthermore, the Airport site is currently fully occupied by a thriving local business that supports the economic vibrancy of the location and provides employment. The occupation by a thriving local business that has been resident on the site for an established period of time should not be ignored, particularly in respect of the ability of the business to successfully relocate and recreate the favourable business conditions that they have been in place. These consideration mean that this site opportunity is less likely to be available. Development of the site could provide a significant boost in housing numbers on a site that would not harm the Green Belt, given there is no certainty attached to when it will become available, it would not be appropriate for the site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan and not a component of the true spatial strategy to deliver housing for the identified need across the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

9.7.1 Gladman would in principle be supportive of the Local Plan providing for growth on the edge of Cambridge, outside of the Green Belt. Locations on the edge of Cambridge are likely to be situated on key transport routes leading into the city therefore providing sustainable transport opportunities in order to access jobs and key facilities and services. 9.7.2 Notwithstanding the support for this approach, it is recognised that the available land on the edge of Cambridge outside of the Green Belt is limited and should not be progressed as a strategy in isolation. The delivery of housing in other parts of the plan area will be necessary in order to meet housing needs.

Southern and Regional Developments (Willingham) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport as inappropriate. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority, the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Furthermore, the Airport site is currently fully occupied by a thriving local business that supports the economic vibrancy of the location and provides employment. The occuption by a thriving local business that has been resident on the site for an estbalished period of time should not be ignored, particularly in respect of the ability of the business to successfully relocate and recreate the favourable business conditions that they have been in place. These consideration mean that this site opportunity is less likely to be available. Development of the Priest Lane site could provide a significant boost in housing numbers on a site that would not harm the Green Belt, whilst there is no certainty attached to when the Cambridge Airport site will become available so it would not be appropriate for the site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan and not a component of the true spatial strategy to deliver housing for the identified need across the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

Southern and Regional Developments (Waterbeach) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport within the emerging spatial strategy as inappropriate. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Although development of the site would provide a significant boost in housing numbers on a site that would harm the Green Belt, given there is no certainty attached to when it will become available, it would not be appropriate for the site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan and not a component of the true spatial strategy to deliver housing for the identified need for the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

In principle, the Trust does not oppose the development of land around the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt provided this is linked appropriately to the delivery of greenspaces to the north east of Cambridge. See also our comments on the ‘Bigger Vision’ at Q 50.