Question 45. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge in the Green Belt?

NPPF para 136 makes clear that exceptional circumstances must be evidenced before any changes are made to the Green Belt boundary around Cambridge. The plan-making process needs to provide the evidence to explain how the release of land from the Green Belt is an essential part of the strategic approach to meeting the identified needs of both Council areas. Pigeon would support some further Green Belt releases, if so justified, as part of the balanced approach to the delivery of a range of sizes and types of sites for jobs and homes, particularly where these coincide with proposed strategic transport corridors into and from Cambridge and subject to the five purposes of the Green Belt (para 134 NPPF) being adequately safeguarded.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Fen Ditton which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for additional growth. The Council should not automatically assume that development in the Green Belt is not ‘appropriate’. Whilst a new Local Plan is the formal process to allocate Green Belt for development, where appropriate, there are many Green Belt locations which contribute little to the openness of the wider area. The Council should also be mindful that, where any development is adjacent to the Green Belt, it can include appropriate landscaping or public open space on land bounding that designation. Therefore, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and wider countryside can be mitigated by appropriate design and layout. We do not consider that development at the sites promoted to the east and west of Horningsea Road would have a significant impact on the openness of the wider Green Belt or the reasons for including the site within it. The Council should be mindful that development at this location would be contained within the landform defined by the A14 to the north. Views over the site would not be significantly changed once the site was developed – this would be particularly so if the northern periphery of the site was subject to landscaping and generous public open space provision. Overall, adverse landscape impacts can be suitably controlled through: • Appropriate master planning and housing density; • Height and form of any housing; • Generous public open space provision; • Open buffer zones between Fen Ditton and new development areas; • Strategic landscaping in green corridors, within the site and on the periphery; • Sensitive surface water drainage strategy embracing SUDs. Whilst we appreciate that national and local planning policies encourage the use of brownfield sites, it is inevitable that greenfield sites will be required for residential development to meet the Council’s housing requirement over the Plan period. Given the limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the highly sustainable location of the site, we consider that the allocation of the site for residential development is appropriate.

This is strongly supported. As set out in our response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Our responses to Questions 43, 44 and 46 comment on the other spatial distribution options. For example, higher densities within the urban area of Cambridge is not straightforward and is not always appropriate because of heritage impacts, and this approach would not meet future development needs in full. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt on the edge of Cambridge is a realistic option. It is considered that in reality the development strategy will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options. North BRLOG promoted land at South West Cambridge through the call for sites process for the emerging GCLP for a landscape-led urban extension to Cambridge. The aim for the promoted development is to deliver a high-quality development with high sustainability standards, and delivering a net gain in biodiversity. North BRLOG are committed to such aims and their long-term stewardship of the site will assist in delivering these. The promoted development contains the following mix of uses: • Between 2,500 and 2,800 dwellings including market and affordable/social housing with a range of tenures and densities to include housing for University and/or College staff, housing for elderly people (including care) and student accommodation; • a comprehensive new green infrastructure network comprising open space and sports pitches, a new country park with connections to Coton Countryside Reserve, wildlife areas and biodiversity enhancement, and strategic landscaping including new woodland planting; • Creation of new flood meadows and the potential re-wilding of Bin brook in certain locations to enhance capacity and its ecological benefits; • A green landscape edge to the M11 to provide a landscape setting to the South West of Cambridge; • a community facility including primary school, community centre, health centre; • a neighbourhood centre including food store and other shops, services and facilities; to save the local community, nearby residents and the West Cambridge campus; • enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections to the existing and planned walking, cycling and public transport network in the local area, and a development which places the needs of pedestrians and cyclists ahead of car users; • a network of streets and spaces that are diverse in their function and character; • a public transport corridor that will link the site with other service and routes and to other City destinations; • high levels of energy performance in building design that follows best practice in energy and carbon reduction; and • sustainability measures including a water recycling system, district heating system and underground waste collection system. The benefits of the promoted development include the following: • the provision of housing and affordable housing for key workers and others, including but not limited to University and College staff; • the provision of residential accommodation for the elderly, including care provision; • the provision of new tenures such as ‘Build to Rent’, co-living and intra-generational housing; • accessible parkland with potential connections to Coton Countryside Reserve offering significant scope for biodiversity enhancement; • delivery of a green infrastructure in the form of publicly accessible open space providing access from the City to the countryside to the west of Cambridge; • other green infrastructure and strategic landscaping, including new woodland planting to address visual impact and provide a buffer with the M11 to address noise and air quality impacts; • improvements to walking and cycling routes to encourage travel by non-car modes of transport, which is far more attainable for an edge of City Centre site; • potential to provide land for the Cambourne to Cambridge Bus (C2C) Strategy, the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM), and the Comberton and Barton Greenways which are Greater Cambridge Partnership or Combined Authority projects, and a potential Western Orbital Route bus corridor in the future if required; • the creation of additional north south public transport and cycle routes, connecting Barton Road to Madingley Road, and the provision of connections to existing developments at NW Cambridge, West Cambridge and Addenbrookes/Cambridge Biomedical Campus; • the provision of a new local centre for the west Cambridge area as well as additional health and education facilities. • the provision of housing and affordable housing for key workers, including but not limited to University and College staff; • the provision of residential accommodation for the elderly, including care provision; • an accessible country park with potential connections to Coton Countryside Reserve offering significant scope for biodiversity enhancement; • delivery of a green 'wedge' of publicly accessible open space providing access from the City to the countryside to the west of Cambridge; • other green infrastructure and strategic landscaping to address visual impact and provide a buffer with the M11 to address noise and air quality impacts; • improvements to walking and cycling routes to encourage travel by non-car modes of transport (which is far more attainable from an edge of Cambridge site than from more distant locations away from the city); • potential to provide land for the Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Strategy and the Comberton Greenway which are Greater Cambridge Partnership projects, and a potential Western Orbital Route bus corridor in the future if required; • the creation of additional north south public transport and cycle routes, and the provision of connections to existing developments at NW Cambridge, West Cambridge and Addenbrookes/Cambridge Biomedical Campus; and, • the provision of a new local centre for the west Cambridge area as well as additional health and education infrastructure. For all these reasons, the site at South West Cambridge should be allocated for a landscape-led urban extension in emerging GCLP.

Should be given serious consideration as there are strong sustainability arguments in its favour.

Probably necessary, as long as a new green belt is created at some point so we don't all merge together! It makes sense to maximise the potential for sustainable transport.

This is the worst way to provide for growth as it spreads traffic congestion and pollution over a wider area and threatens the character of the city by surrounding it in an ugly urban sprawl.

As noted in our response to Question 39, the Trumpington Residents’ Association believes there is a very strong argument against further large-scale development in the Green Belt. Any further development in the Green Belt would undermine the green belt purposes of protecting the setting of the city and the separation between city and villages, would further undermine biodiversity and climate change principles, and be to the detriment of the well-being of residents. It should only be contemplated if the criterion of “exceptional justification” is shown to be fully met. The fact that the preservation of the Green Belt may “restrict growth on the edge of Cambridge” is part of its purpose and should be seen as a benefit which contributes to all four themes rather than an undue restriction on growth. In our local area, we accepted the loss of large areas of Green Belt in the 2006 Local Plan, with the consequence that nearly 4000 homes have been built in the Southern Fringe in the last decade, together with the creation of the associated public open spaces of Hobson's Park and Trumpington Meadows Country Park. In anticipation of developers putting in further proposals, we will object to further development in five local areas which are an essential part of the Green Belt and the separation between the City and surrounding villages: (1) the green corridor between Trumpington Meadows, Hauxton Road and the M11; (2) the land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the M11 and the west side of Shelford Road; (3) land to the west of Trumpington Road, from Trumpington village to Latham Road; (4) land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the east side of Shelford Road and Granham's Road; and (5) land to the south east of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, including White Hill towards Granham's Road and the approaches to Magog Down. We believe that it is essential that these areas are maintained as agricultural land or public parks.

• We strongly oppose this proposal. Already large areas have been taken out of the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge and more are included in the 2018 Local Plan. If more is taken then the purpose of the Green Belt will be lost, including easy access to the countryside for city residents. Building on the Green Belt would also be incompatible with the proposed Big Themes. New settlements must be the preferred option with the question of sustainability resolved by the provision of high quality, affordable, green public transport from the very beginning. • For Fulbourn, situated very close to Cambridge, further development in the Green Belt is of great concern. The urban edge of Cambridge has crept towards the village over several years, much of it in the Green Belt. The Beechwoods Estate, the Tesco supermarket, Fulbourn Hospital expansion, and Capital Park have all been developed in the parish. Recent permissions include the redevelopment and densification of the Ida Darwin Hospital site, and a social club with ten 3-storey flats together with a large 3-storey care home, both on the edge of the Capital Park Business Park. All are brownfield sites in the Green Belt, but all identified as ‘departure applications’, i.e. they do not conform to both national (NPPF) and local Green Belt policies which aim to prevent overdevelopment (both in plan and height) and a loss of openness. • In addition, expansion of the Peterhouse Technology Park into the Green Belt within Fulbourn Parish is incorporated into the 2018 Local Plan, and an Exception Site in the Green Belt has recently been completed on the eastern edge of the village. This drip-drip of planning permissions, a kind of ‘ribbon development’, has resulted in densification in the Green Belt, and has gradually joined Fulbourn to Cambridge. Policies need to be written to ensure that officers will refuse applications that have a major impact on the purposes of the Green Belt.

Should be given serious consideration as there are strong sustainability arguments in its favour.

I think that under no circumstances should the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge be used. It is important to keep this as Green Belt to support wildlife, to give people a good quality of life, to combat climate change through helping biodiversity to thrive and to keep the character of the city and greater Cambridge as it is at the moment. I do not see any reason that would necessitate Green Belt being used in this Local Plan. Green Belt should be protected for future generations.

Do not build on the Green Belt

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.

No. Green Belt land should only be released in exceptional circumstances. We believe that this is not necessary to accommodate growth over the Greater Cambridge Plan period. (But see also response to Q39, applying further from the City.)

Help the environment. Boost wellbeing. Dismiss growth. This sounds like a bad idea, but if it does meet the above test, then do it.

Land should be removed from the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge if evidence indicates that it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances and helping to reduce climate impacts.

Please refer to the submission made by the North Barton Road Land Owners Group for the development of land north of Barton Road, referred to as South West Cambridge.

When viewed in the context of the scale of the housing need in Greater Cambridge and its unmet need, it is critical that developing around the edges of Cambridge on land in the Green Belt is included in the review of any strategy. The NPPF indicates where Green Belt land is required for release, consideration should first be given to land which is previously developed and/or well served by public transport. Grosvenor and USS consider that there are exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land to meet the growing housing need in Cambridge, especially where travel distances can be reduced and sustainable patterns of development encouraged, as would be the case with sites on the edge of the City. This will provide an opportunity to identify sites which can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs, especially where those sites are well served by public transport (as advised in para 138 of the NPPF) and also well connected to key destinations such as major employment hubs, education and community facilities. As set out in the response to Question 39, Grosvenor and USS, therefore, urge the Councils to review sites for release around the edges of Cambridge in the Green Belt which are well served by public transport and well connected to key destinations such as major employment hubs, education and community facilities. Trumpington South is situated on the southern edge of Cambridge, located next to the existing Trumpington Park and Ride, and the future Cambridge South West Travel Hub, with proposals to extend the guided busway around the edge of the site. Trumpington South is well connected via active and shared travel modes to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, the city centre and nearby community facilities, reducing commuting and travel distances to key locations. Furthermore, the Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal prepared by Terence O’Rourke in support of these representations, assesses the local purpose of the Green Belt in Cambridge in this location which is to preserve its setting and special character and to prevent the merging of communities with each other and to the city. The Appraisal considers the contribution of the site to the prevention of communities merging into one another to be limited. The Appraisal’s focus has, therefore, been on the changing nature of the site and surrounding environs and how this has and will affect the setting of Cambridge city. The Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal conclusions advise that the alterations to the landscape, specifically the urbanising nature of development, such as the proposed Park and Ride, and associated reduction in visual openness, will alter the contribution of the site to Green Belt purposes. It goes on to say that this is particularly the case in relation to the setting of and approach to the settlement edge and that these changes have also, therefore, altered the qualities and function of the Green Belt. The Appraisal notes that the future development of this site would provide an opportunity to create a new settlement edge which responds to the changing and increasingly enclosed nature of the landscape as a result of development. It advises that the extent of the settlement edge should allow for a sufficient countryside edge to be preserved, ensuring that the landscape predominates. It concludes that alterations to the landscape would provide the opportunity to enhance the countryside edge and, therefore, the setting and special character of Cambridge. Finally, the NPPF also refers to “ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt land”. The Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal advises that Trumpington South offers the opportunity to significantly enhance the quality of the remaining Green Belt within the site through biodiversity enhancements and access for multi-recreational purposes, as has been demonstrated in the Country Park to date. Grosvenor and USS consider these compensatory measures would offset any loss of Green Belt arising from the development.

Should see to maintain a barrier to encroachment on the villages but some areas particularly lying between Cambridge and the M11 could be developed without any creep into the villages. In the same way the A14 presents a barrier between the City development and the villages. These opportunities towards the M11 should be evaluated in preference to areas that would essentially result in the fusion of separate communities.

See 39 / 40/ 42

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

Expansion of Cambridge should maintain separation from necklace villages.

To be avoided, see previous responses

I don’t think green belt should be used for development. There must be alternatives without taking habitat from our wildlife.

The most appropriate area for new development.

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.

The emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan must be confident that exceptional circumstances exist to demonstrate that releasing Green Belt at the fringes of Cambridge city is an appropriate strategy. This is entirely the responsibility of the Councils to identify whether these circumstances exist following the exhaustion of all other avenues in achieving adequate levels of development to meet the needs of the new Plan period. It is considered that whilst the Plan should ensure that it robustly considers the options in releasing land from the Green Belt to ensure that the development potential of sustainable sites can be realised, it should not preclude the consideration of other suitable sites that are not constrained by their Green Belt designation. This includes site at Fen End, Willingham which provides a further option to achieve sustainable development. Although it is not constrained by Green Belt, it should be considered an alternative route to achieve requisite levels of growth. It is emphasised that all options to achieve a robust spatial strategy should be considered, including the review of sites in the Green Belt at Cambridge city and the villages, as well as non-Green Belt sites located within the villages of South Cambridgeshire. However, the review of Green Belt sites at the edge of Cambridge must ensure that they do not directly contravene national guidance in relation to the purposes and strategic functionality of the Green Belt. The review of Green Belt sites at Cambridge is sensitive given that these sites demonstrate purposes in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as well as checking urban sprawls (Paragraphs 134a and 134c of the NPPF). As such, consideration of any Green Belt sites at the fringes of Cambridge city must in the first instance be assessed against these strategic purposes to ensure that wider function of the Green Belt at the edge of the city is not detrimentally compromised. Therefore, it is maintained that the preferable approach should be to assess Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites beyond the fringes of the city, located within the villages of South Cambridgeshire given that the development at these locations will not result in significant sprawl or urbanisation. Summary of Comments - All options to achieve a robust spatial strategy should be considered including sites within the Green Belt as well as non Green Belt sites in village

The emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan must be confident that exceptional circumstances exist to demonstrate that releasing Green Belt at the fringes of Cambridge city is an appropriate strategy. This is entirely the responsibility of the Councils to identify whether these circumstances exist following the exhaustion of all other avenues in achieving adequate levels of development to meet the needs of the new Plan period. Claremont Planning have advised Southern & Regional Developments and identify that the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review has established that the economic growth of the Plan area has significantly outstripped forecasts, and so are of the mind that exceptional circumstances do exist to justify Green Belt review. The quantum of housing demand that is coupled to the substantial increas in economic growth will result in new development pressures influencing the whole of the Local Plan area. As such, it is imperative that the new Plan reviews its Green Belt to ensure that sufficient sites can be identified to meet this increased need as a result of this rapid economic growth experienced within the sub-region. It is considered that whilst the Plan should ensure that it robustly considers the options in releasing land from the Green Belt to ensure that the development potential of sustainable sites can be realised, it should not preclude the consideration of other suitable sites that are not constrained by their Green Belt designation. This includes Southern and Regional Developments site at Kingfisher Way Cottenham which provides a further option to achieve sustainable development. As it is not constrained by Green Belt, Cottenham should be considered as an alternative route to achieving the requisite levels of growth. It is emphasised that all options to achieve a robust spatial strategy should be considered, alongside the review of sites in the Green Belt. The review of Green Belt sites at the edge of Cambridge should ensure that they do not directly contravene national guidance in relation to the purposes and strategic functionality of the Green Belt. The review of Green Belt sites at Cambridge is sensitive given that these sites demonstrate purposes in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as well as checking urban sprawls (Paragraphs 134a and 134c of the NPPF). As such, consideration of any Green Belt sites at the fringes of Cambridge city must in the first instance be assessed against these strategic purposes to ensure that wider function of the Green Belt at the edge of the city is not detrimentally compromised. Therefore, it is maintained that the preferable approach should be to assess Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites beyond the fringes of the city, located within the villages of South Cambridgeshire given that the development at these locations will not result in significant sprawl or urbanisation. Summary of Comments: More suitable Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites exist for release that are more appropriate for the emerging Local Plan's consideration.