Context
Climate change is fundamental to the NPPF’s environmental objective of sustainable development, stating that: “The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
The emerging GCLP is strongly influenced by reducing climate impacts, through compact development located to connect homes with jobs and where active and sustainable travel can be maximised. The proposed development strategy for the Greater Cambridge area is subsequently focused on directing development where active and public transport is the natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development, and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live (as set out in Policy S/DS).
CEG agrees with the emphasis placed on the need to decrease climate impacts and support the aim to help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050. To achieve this, the Reg 18 consultation recognises that development should be sited in places that help to limit private car use and, in turn, carbon emissions. In the context of South East Cambridge, the Plan states that: ‘Our evidence shows that the edge of Cambridge could be a sustainable location for homes and jobs, being accessible to existing jobs and services.’
How do other options compare?
New settlements
Within the overarching climate change context, it is important to consider the proposed development at new settlements, as well as the associated impacts. Section 2.4 of the Reg 18 consultation document suggests that growth at Waterbeach, Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Cambourne is an important part of the strategy for development – all of which lie beyond the Cambridge Green Belt to the north and west of the city (within the previous South Cambridgeshire plan area).
Such areas beyond Cambridge City and the edge of Cambridge are unproven employment markets. While Waterbeach does benefit from an existing agglomeration of employment uses, it is evident that businesses want to be sited where they can tap into the presence of other local business and research networks, a local highly skilled labour force and Cambridge University, and this means being located in or near the city. This is illustrated by the ongoing challenge that Cambourne and Northstowe face in delivering employment growth; while they may be effective in housing delivery terms, these new settlements do not contain established clusters of knowledge-intensive sectors and they struggle to recreate the economic magnetism of the city itself. Demand for employment space (including lab and office space) therefore remains in and on the edge of Cambridge City.
This is an important point within the climate change theme. As to be expected, locating employment development beyond the urban area of Cambridge will only serve to drive unsustainable travel patterns as local residents increasingly need to use the car to commute. This was highlighted throughout the transport evidence, in which new settlement strategic spatial options tended to score lower than those focused around the city or on the edge of the city, including in the Green Belt, because travel to work patterns are not characterised by active modes of travel. The combination of unproven employment markets and unsustainable travel patterns associated with the new towns therefore raises questions around the proposed strategy towards employment growth in these areas, and it is considered that this is contrary to the aims of the central climate change theme.