How much – The general approach whereby housing need is determined by reference to employment growth (and not just the standard methodology) is necessary and welcomed. The logic in using a ‘Medium Consume own smoke’ approach arriving at a need of 44,400 homes is also understood. To fully deliver on the stated vision for Greater Cambridge to be a place where a big decrease in our climate impacts comes with a big increase in the quality of everyday life for all our communities, a proactive net zero approach would also seek to go some way towards remedying the existing pattern of commuting into the Greater Cambridge area for work.

Where – The general focus on strategic sites is logical but increases risks in terms of delivery rates and leverage in discussions with the Councils. As required by the NPPF (Paragraph 79), Planning policies should also identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. It is incumbent on the Councils to reflect this in the strategy. The proposed allocation of only 6 new sites / 384 new homes across the 5 Rural Centres, 13 Minor Rural Centres, 33 Group Villages and 55 Infill Villages (equating to just 3.3% of the new housing allocations proposed) does not reflect this. Additional sites in sustainable village locations need to be included as part of a rounded strategy.


Detailed comments are provided on the relevant section on Climate Change. Ambitious requirements in these regards are supported in principle, but they need to be demonstrably deliverable in practice. Importantly, the preparation of proposals will inevitable take longer (at least initially) and this must be factored into assumed trajectories. Any reliance on faster delivery of homes at Northstowe and Waterbeach and delivery rates generally need to be justified, including in light of the requirements of the proposed policies (not just the existing policies and situation).

In short, the broad strategy is supported but not on its own. To provide the necessary delivery rates, choice and to help sustain existing communities and the success of the Greater Cambridge economy, a broader mix of sites, including more allocations in the sustainable villages, is required.

We support the conclusions in the Development Strategy Topic paper that the rural southern cluster area provides the opportunity to provide new homes that are close to the research parks and potentially in locations with sustainable transport opportunities, some villages in the Green Belt have the best access which may constitute exceptional circumstances to release sites from the Green Belt, and that evidence suggests that housing in the rest of the rural area outside the southern cluster can help support delivery of a range of smaller sites within the area, and support the vitality of our villages. We do not however consider that the allocations in the plan then adequately reflect these recognitions and opportunities, with more sites required to deliver on the Plan’s vision.