H/HD: Housing density

We need to get away from the obsession with higher densities.
We have for a long time permitted far too dense building, which has led to lower internal space and external private amenity space standards, leading to family homes totally unsuitable for bringing up a family (i.e. the "Swifts" development at Fulbourn) and a myriad of "Rabbit hutch" type blocks of flats.
These are the slums of tomorrow, with a built in encouragement of anti-social behaviour, crime, anxiety and mental ill-health.
We need proper family homes with generous gardens.

Density should be appropriate to local circumstances- i.e 2.5/3 storey developments are not appropriate in villages with 1&2 storey character.

Please don’t underestimate the value of the Clare Hall Sports Ground and ecological corridor along the Brook as a vital ‘green lung’ for city inhabitants. Covid 19 lockdowns underscored the crucial role of this area for the mental and physical health of local inhabitants, especially those living in high density housing such as the Accordia development.

Our quality of life depends on reasonable space both inside and outside the home.

In the previous SCDC Local Plan a density in rural sites was limited to 30 dwellings per hectare. I am glad to see that you have gone away from this strict prescription. You are still tied up with "most efficient use of the land" which I interpret to mean that car parking spaces will not be considered "efficient". For stability and community cohesion, competition for common car parking spaces is undesirable. Journey budgets are a very useful concept as it puts further restraint on development of rural villages which, of necessity, result in high journey budgets. Your own figures support this. Thus I would like to see journey budgets with some numbers on which should be considered when applications for development are being submitted.

When you refer to weighing the growth potential of a development, I don't see that you are evaluating the growth potential of each individual plot within a site. If a community is to become stable, each householder needs sufficient room for extensions, conservatories and the like otherwise, with growing children they may have to move if they can't afford the prices of trading up on their particular estate.

USS is supportive of the ambitions of proposed policy H/HD to deliver site specific appropriate net densities across Greater Cambridge, taking advantage of opportunities to deliver higher densities on sites with good accessibility subject to local character considerations. It is important that sites in the most sustainable locations are used in the most efficient way.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

Not supported: mistakes have been made in the past with very High Density housing, typically achieved though ‘high rise’ with very limited Green Infrastructure. The impact on existing communities with a multiple increase in population size in such  a small City as Cambridge (just 5 miles in diameter) is yet to be tested and could prove to be a major strategy error. If Cambridge loses ‘what is good to live here’(and visit) , the economic objectives may not be met as companies and people go elsewhere.  This is of particular relevance to the size and scale of S/NEC  / NECAAP

Not supported: mistakes have been made in the past with very High-Density housing, typically achieved though ‘high rise’ with very limited Green Infrastructure. The impact on existing communities with a multiple increase in population size in such a small City as Cambridge (just 5 miles in diameter) is yet to be tested and could prove to be a major strategy error. If Cambridge loses ‘what is good to live here’(and visit) , the economic objectives may not be met as companies and people go elsewhere. This is of particular relevance to the proposed size and scale of S/NEC / NECAAP

Not supported: mistakes have been made in the past with very High Density housing, typically achieved though ‘high rise’ with very limited Green Infrastructure. The impact on existing communities with a multiple increase in population size in such a small City as Cambridge (just 5 miles in diameter) is yet to be tested and could prove to be a major strategy error. If Cambridge loses ‘what is good to live here’(and visit) , the economic objectives may not be met as companies and people go elsewhere.

We support this policy.

The density of Rural areas must not be the same as none-rural areas. The minimum sizes of homes is to be defined and enforced without exception.

The policy intent in relation to housing density confirms that there will not be a blanket requirement, but instead housing densities will be determined on a site specific basis. This is largely justified on the basis of site specific constraints (historic character) and opportunities (transport accessibility).

Marshall is supportive of a design-led approach to density that encourages each site to make the best use of land, whilst remaining sensitive to local character. Marshall has recently appointed specialist landscape architects who will be advising on the opportunities and constraints across the Cambridge East site and what these mean for densities and heights that can be supported across the development. It is intended that this work will feed into the discussions that Marshall will continue with the GCSP in order to help in demonstrating the capacity of the site and begin to establish design principles and draft local plan site allocation policies.

TMLC supports the delivery appropriate site-specific net densities across Greater Cambridge, taking advantage of opportunities to deliver higher densities on sites with good accessibility subject to local character considerations. It is important that sites in the most sustainable locations are used in the most efficient way.

In the past this policy has t resulted in some poor schemes notably round Cambridge Station. The so called triangle development now called Warren Close, the Brookgate development around Mill Park and the so called Kaleidoscope scheme Glenalmond Ave. In all these cases the Council has failed to provide sufficient open space leading to a poor environment and residents, particularly those with children have been denied adequate open space. The Council standard response has been to take money under the section 106 scheme which has been a confidence trick spending money remotely.

We support the proposed policy direction to seek to deliver site specific appropriate net densities across Greater Cambridge, and to apply a design-led approach to determine the optimum development capacity of sites in order to make the best use of land. See in particular our response to S/NWC: North West Cambridge.

As a village, Great Shelford does not wish to see high density development within its boundaries.

As a rule, the plan should respect the nature of the existing communities i.e. villages will be less densely populated than a new development.

Cambourne Town Council requests that careful consideration should be given to densities to ensure there is sufficient space for open space and bio-diversity can be incorporated into a new development. positive lessons should be learnt from the green space provision in Cambourne.

Adequate and excellent allotment provision can help to make dense developments sustainable: all residents have access to garden space near their home.
Dynamic management is key: as an allotment site manager I try to allocate the right amount of land to each tenant, as their capability and ambition changes over time, and reallocate the plot if its not being used.

The policy objective to deliver higher densities on sites with good accessibility is strongly supported. This policy should however specifically reference the need to deliver smaller unit sizes, such as 1 bedroom 1 person homes, in these locations.
Sites located in Town Centes and/ or close to transport interchanges are highly suited to increased densities of housing and people. They are typically however less suited to families. The delivery of smaller unit sizes, such as 1 bedroom 1 person homes, will therefore be important for maximising housing density on these sites.

The proposed design led approach for making best use of land is strongly supported. This policy should however specifically recognise that smaller more constrained sites are likely to better suited to smaller unit types (i.e those designed for individuals instead of large families).
Constrained sites tend to have fewer opportunities for providing private amenity space and play space. They are therefore better suited to higher densities of smaller unit sizes. Encouraging roof gardens and other innovative uses of community space should be sought in these of locations.

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the First Proposals Public Consultation for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully considered at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Cambridge is a beautiful, compact and historic city. It is also an historic seat of learning with a very high concentration of highly graded heritage assets. Much of the city is covered by Conservation Area status. The river corridor, green fingers and open spaces, with cows grazing in meadows even at the heart of the city, shape the character of the townscape and landscape.

Although a relatively flat landscape, the elevated positions to the west and south of the Cambridge afford important views across the city skyline, which is one of extensive tree cover and emerging spires. The flatter Fens landscape to the north and east provides very long-distance views of the City and the big east Anglian skies.

The surrounding rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire comprises over 100 villages, each with their own unique character and heritage. New settlements are an important feature of the district, with their own special identity and are growing rapidly.

We recognise the area faces intense pressure for growth, driven by both the economic success and the attractiveness of the area, in large part a consequence of

its rich architectural and cultural heritage. This growth must be carefully managed to ensure that the very things that contribute to its success are not harmed in the process.

It is for this reason that Historic England is keen to ensure that the emerging plan gives full consideration to the historic environment, both in the choice of site allocations and policy criteria for sites, as well as through a robust and clear suite of historic environment and other policies that seek to both protect but also enhance the historic environment.

We have reviewed the Draft Plan and consultation material with a view to providing advice on heritage matters.

As a general comment, Historic England welcomes emerging plan and work undertaken to date. We have however identified below some of the key issues to be addressed in progressing the next iteration of the Plan: This should be read in conjunction with Appendix A which provides more detailed comments on these and other more minor issues.

a) Site Assessment and the need for Heritage Impact Assessments

We are pleased to note that a degree of site assessment has already been undertaken in relation to the historic environment. These are set out in the HELAA Report, especially Appendix 4.

To date, the assessment of sites is fairly high level and brief but provides a useful starting point, in particular helping to identify immediate showstoppers. We note that many of the sites are shown as amber.

As we have discussed previously, the need for further assessment of heritage in terms of significance, impact on that significance, potential mitigation and enhancements etc will be needed for the site allocations. There is currently an insufficient evidence base in this regard. We therefore welcome your commitment to undertake Heritage Impact Assessments for site allocations. These should be prepared prior to the next draft of the Local Plan.

This further assessment, known as Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should follow the 5 step methodology set out in out in our advice note, HEAN 3 on Site Allocations in Local Plans https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/.

HIAs should be proportionate (both to the scale of the site and the assets affected). All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment

impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or inter-visibility with, a potential site.

Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.

Impacts on significance are not just based on distance or visual impacts, and assessment requires a careful judgment based on site visits and the available evidence base. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:

• Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
• Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
• Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
• Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
• Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
• Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

The HIAs should assess the suitability of each area for development and the impact on the historic environment. Should the HIA conclude that development in the area could be acceptable and the site be allocated, the findings of the HIA should inform the Local Plan policy including development criteria and a strategy diagram which expresses the development criteria in diagrammatic form.

Which sites require HIA?

Ideally all sites should have an HIA, albeit proportionate to the site and heritage sensitivities.

For existing allocations being carried forward into this Local Plan, the HIA is less about the principle of development (that has already been established through previous plan allocation) and more about exploring capacity, height, density and any heritage mitigation and enhancement opportunities so that these can then be

included in the updated policy wording.

For new allocations, the HIA will be a more holistic view and consider both the principle of development as well as the other matters identified above.

b) Policy Wording for sites

If, having completed the heritage impact assessments, it is concluded that a site is suitable for allocation, we would remind you to include appropriate policy criteria for the historic environment in the policy. Please refer to the advice we give on policy wording in the attached table.

It can be helpful to refer to an HIA in the policy wording. Concept diagrams can also be useful to include in the plan to illustrate key site considerations/ recommendations.

c) Edge of Cambridge sites

The Plan proposes carrying forward a number of partially built out allocations on the edge of the City as well as some minor extensions to these. The Plan also proposes revisiting the dwelling capacity/density for some of these sites e.g. Eddington.

Proposals for North East Cambridge are very high density and also quite tall.

The Plan also includes a very large new allocation at East Cambridge (previously released from the Green Belt and allocated in the 2006 Plan, although not in the 2018 Plan). The number of dwellings now being proposed represents a significant increase in density from the 2006 Plan.

We have some concerns regarding these densities and heights on edge of Cambridge sites. Development at very high densities/heights and the potential impact on the overall setting of this historic city. HIAs should give careful consideration to the issue of development and site capacity and height – we will be looking for evidence in this regard.

d) Historic Environment Policy

We welcome your intention to include a policy for the Historic Environment. This should cover both designated and non-designated heritage assets. Policy wording should be in line with the NPPF but we are also looking for a local flavour.

Policies should be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the area and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation.

You should also include a policy for Heritage at Risk and a policy for historic shopfronts. For further detail see Appendix A.

e) Design Policy

We welcome the proposals for a design policy on the plan. We note that this policy is also intended to address tall buildings. We are concerned that the policy might become overly long and detailed, given it is covering such a wide and important range of issues and wonder whether separating out tall buildings into a separate policy might be helpful?

f) Tall Buildings Study and Policy

Related to the above, given the growth pressures that we would anticipate Cambridge is likely to experience over the coming years, we are pleased to see that the matter of Tall buildings and the skyline will be addressed in policy.

We had understood that you were commissioning a study in relation to tall buildings and the skyline policy. Is this still proposed to inform the policy in the next draft of the Local Plan?

See our advice note HEAN 4 and the consultation draft of HEAN 4. Any policy should indicate what considerations are needed for taller buildings, where buildings may or may not be appropriate etc. and in particular consider in the impact on the historic environment.

We broadly welcome policy 60 and Appendix F of the 2018 Cambridge City Local Plan. However, we consider that this could be further supplemented to indicate which areas may or may not be suited to taller buildings. Our advice note in relation to tall buildings provides further guidance in this respect

We have been having discussions with the team preparing The North East Area Action Plan in relation to tall buildings studies and have provided a detailed advice letter in that regard. Please refer to our advice letters in relation to NEA Action Plan and tall buildings for further information on our position.

g) Other Supporting Evidence

We welcome the preparation of the HELAA although consider that further, more detailed evidence is needed in relation to heritage impact and so welcome your intention to prepare HIAs for site allocations.

We broadly welcome the Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment including the baseline study of the setting of Cambridge. However, we have expressed some concerns regarding some aspects of this baseline, in particular the weighting given to some of the key characteristics and aspects of setting of Cambridge including views. Further detail is given in Appendix A.

We welcome the evidence in relation to landscape character assessment. We do however continue to suggest that it would also be helpful to commission Historic Landscape Characterisation work for inform this Plan and future growth in the area.

We welcome the production of the Sustainability Appraisal. We would comment however that since many of the site allocations are grouping together under particular policies, the different impacts for individual sites are not always drawn out in the assessment tables – this sometimes has the effect of neutralising the scoring.

Historic England – Ox Cam research work

Historic England has commissioned consultants to undertake some work looking at development in the OxCam Arc. ‘Measuring Impact: Managing Change’ looks at the question, ‘How should the form of growth in the Oxford-Cambridge arc positively respond to the Historic Environment’. This research is due to report in the next few months and we hope to be able to share this with you at that time as it may provide useful evidence to inform your Local Plan work.

Other comments

In preparation of the forthcoming Greater Cambridge Local Plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, archaeologists and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues. Where there are various options proposed for a settlement, identification of heritage issues for a particular

allocation does not automatically correspond to the support for inclusion of the alternative sites, given we have not been able to assess all of the sites.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

We trust that these comments are helpful to you in developing the Local Plan. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We suggest it might be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss our comments and, in particular, heritage impact assessments and policy wording for site allocations.
Please feel free to suggest some dates.

Could lead to small builds with little access to outside green space.

Vision and aims
I support the vision and aims of the Local Plan and the general direction of the development strategy, but am concerned about the overall scale of development and the continuing high levels of growth which are driven by technical economic growth forecasts.

How much development, and where – general comments
I recognise that Greater Cambridge has a strong and nationally important economy, but I do not support the continuing pace and scale of high levels of growth that has increasing cumulative impacts on the environment, water supply, heritage and carbon emissions.
I would argue that the growth of the Cambridge and the impacts of that level of growth on South Cambridgeshire are disproportionately high (a third higher than the government targets) compared with other Local Plans, because the scale of growth is driven by technical economic forecasts studies and the desire to continue to stoke the engine of growth yet again.
The area over the last 30 years has absorbed major levels of development which has brought many benefits and disbenefits.
But the time has come with this Plan, in a new era having to seriously address the causes and impacts of climate change and net zero carbon goals to set t Cambridge on a different course.
The development strategy should with this Plan start to reduce the scale of growth to more manageable levels, perhaps towards the Low option so as to set the direction of travel for the next planning round in the era of climate change .

S/JH: New jobs and homes
The level of new homes proposed in the Plan is driven by the need to enhance economic growth, so much so that it is 37% higher than the Government targets for the area.
This proposes larger amounts of housing growth in the surrounding South Cambridgeshire District to serve Cambridge and the surrounding area.
A large amount of new development proposed in the housing pipeline is already allocated to known sites. A moderated target would lessen the uncertainty of deliverability, ease of the identified water supply issue and give time to for water companies to decide and implement sound options, and reduce climate impacts.
Even a moderate reduction in the housing target, which goes so far beyond what the Government requires, could provide more reserve housing sites, providing flexibility to maintain a five year housing supply, reduce pressure on villages and start to slow the pace of change in an area, which has seen so much cumulative change over the recent decades.

S/DS: Development strategy
I generally support the Development Strategy that supports sustainable development and proposes compact active neighbourhoods in Cambridge, development and /or expansion of new towns connected by good public and active transport and the proposals for very limited new development in the rest of the rural area.

S/SH: Settlement hierarchy
I support the proposed Settlement hierarchy policy area as a means of planning and directing new development towards the most suitable and sustainable locations.
In my comment on the rest of rural area, I am concerned about the impact of unallocated housing windfalls being used by possible speculative planning applications contrary to the development strategy to direct development to the most sustainable locations.
I would suggest that the word indictive in the proposed policy SS/SH is omitted to strengthen and add clarity to the proposed policy in the light of the revised annual windfall target.
Support the reclassification of Cottenham and Babraham villages to provide locations for development and new jobs on good public transport routes.

S/SB: Settlement boundaries
I support the work on the development of Settlement boundaries, especially to protect the open countryside from gradual encroachment around villages and on high quality agricultural land.
The work on settlement boundaries should include the involvement of Parish Councils at an appropriate stage in the development of the Policy because of their local data and knowledge of past development.

Cambridge urban area - general comments
Support in Cambridge urban area for good designed, active compact new developments, reuse of brownfield land and continued development of larger neighbourhoods where possible.

S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Support the development of NE Cambridge as a sustainable neighbourhood with good public transport and active transport into Cambridge

Edge of Cambridge - general comments
Support edge of Cambridge planned new neighbourhoods and new sustainable developments and settlements of sufficient size to cater for daily needs and with good access to public and active transport

New settlements - general comments
Support for new settlements of substantial size to cater for more than local needs. I particularly support the growth of Cambourne which can provide good rail access into Cambridge and to the West in the mid-term from new East West rail infrastructure.

S/BRC: Babraham Research Campus
Support the release of land from the Green Belt to support nationally important R and D and life science jobs located near to public transport routes and active transport.

S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster
NB, Policy has different name on map page.
In accordance with reducing carbon emissions, and supporting access to the existing rail network the villages of Shelford and Whittlesford could be locations for more sustainable development, despite Green Belt locations

S/SCP: Policy areas in the rural southern cluster
Support existing site allocations to be carried forward including the expansion of Babraham research campus using Green Belt land

Rest of the rural area - general comments
I support the development strategy approach which directs new development to a limited number of sites in the most sustainable development locations supporting the sustainability of villages.
There is still the matter of the unallocated housing windfall development identified in the strategy Topic Paper of 5345 homes for 2021-2041 which is not included in the additional allocated land target of the 11596.
The anticipated dwellings per year for SCDC is between 240 and 255 dwellings a year. Notwithstanding the proposed policy SS/SH, there is a risk that developers will seek speculative permission in the open countryside greenfield sites contrary to the development strategy using the windfalls allocation and I have made a comment on this on Policy SS/SH.

Climate change - general comments
All new development will have impacts relating to increasing carbon emissions and require adaptation responses. A Local Plan can only seek to mitigate these impacts and by far the most impacts are from the existing development, their use and getting around using carbon fuelled transport.
The rate of change in and around Cambridge over the past 30 years has been significantly greater than for just local needs, mainly to develop nationally important economic development. This Plan continues this approach despite the issue of climate change and water supply and large amounts on new development still to be implemented from current Local Plans.
I would argue that the time has now come to step back from this direction of travel and begin to reduce the scale of growth around Cambridge using the Low option as a first step.
I was hoping, given the aims of the Plan and the input of the Net Zero Carbon study for a more radical Plan which addressed climate change and zero carbon targets through aiming to reduce the total amount of new development to meet local needs need and move to a position which is in line with Government targets in the next planning round.

CC/NZ: Net zero carbon new buildings
Support in general
Although I have concerns about how for example heat pump technology can be installed and used at reasonable cost in new development.

CC/WE: Water efficiency in new developments
Support, important given the water supply issues coming forward up to 2041

CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Support especially with regards balancing insulation and overheating with increasing hot to very hot summers risk brought about through a changing climate.
Site wide approaches should include appropriate lower densities through good design which allow for beyond minimum garden space and space for Suds and open space and greening.

CC/FM: Flooding and integrated water management
Support
Especially permeable surfaces and integration of water management with enhancements to biodiversity and greening.

CC/CS: Supporting land-based carbon sequestration
Support the creation of land for use as carbon sinks through the development process. Perhaps a suitable use of land in the Green Belt or on lower grade agricultural land.

Biodiversity and green spaces - general comments
Support the identification of 14 strategic GI initiatives and enhancing the linkages between GI and open spaces to provide corridors for wildlife.

BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Support delivery of a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain.
I would comment that funding for long term management of biodiversity assets is key for the long-term benefits from such a policy.
I could also emphasis the creation of winter wet areas, water space and Suds designed to benefit enhanced biodiversity should be planned in to developments at an early stage

BG/GI: Green infrastructure
Support the use of a GI standard, particularly on larger developments.
In particular early identification of GI and biodiversity assets and potential gains as an early part of the design process and /or planning brief

BG/TC: Improving Tree canopy cover and the tree population
Support increasing tree and woodland cover, ensuring right tree(s) in right places and species futureproofed for lifetime changing climate adaptation.
A particular opportunity is the rural field margins of agricultural land to help increase the linkages and biodiversity gains and in specific places the creation of woodland belts in the open countryside, green belt land and around villages.
In Cambridge urban areas, where there are existing trees there is a need to plan their replacement with adaptation species to gradually adapt to a changing climate.
Also, to provide sufficient future tree cover to mitigate the urban heat island effect, provide shade and mitigate microclimatic effects.

BG/RC: River corridors
Support the protection and enhancement of river corridors and restoration of natural features and use of GI to support the alleviation of flooding risk.
Support the delivery of the continuous Cam Valley Trail.

BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
Support the protection of the wide variety of open spaces and use of Local Green Space designation in appropriate locations

BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Support the provision of open space and recreation provision, including appropriate play space.

WS/HD: Creating healthy new developments
Support the use of health impact assessments in proposals.
I would comment that with the increase in ride on electric vehicles and increasing older communities there are opportunities to coordinate with transport professional the delivery of smooth pathways with minimal dropped kerbs which gives smoother access to local centres and bus stops linked to older persons housing and also can prevent falls.

GP/PP: People and place responsive design
Support the requirement of inclusion of a comprehensive design and access statement and recognise the importance of good design tailored to the local area and involving local communities and Parish Councils particularly in villages.

GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Support the use of landscape character assessment to enhance the setting of Cambridge and protect and enhance the setting of villages.

GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt
National guidance places great importance on Green Belt policy and sets out how planning proposals should be considered.
I support the use of GI and other opportunities to provide access and increase tree and woodlands where appropriate in the Green Belt.
But I think where there are locations where there is good public transport especially rail access or future rail access there is a good case to consider the special circumstances judgment.
I think it is time to question if this national policy is still relevant to the situation Greater Cambridge in the period up to the middle of the century. Further Green Belt assessments may be better served by considering sustainable development and the extension of the Green Belt to prevent coalescence around villages beyond the current Green Belt boundary which was made before most of the new development (over 70%) is beyond the current outside boundary or further modification of this policy to enable growth to be planned for the 21st century rather than the conditions which related to the last century.

Jobs – general comments
I am concerned about the scale of economic growth in the area and its use to drive large amounts of housing growth well about what would be required in other planning areas.
However, I support the life science sector and its national importance and the appropriate development in science parks including their expansion using Green Belt land

J/AL: Protecting the best agricultural land
Support the restriction of development on the best agricultural land as supported in the Sustainability Appraisal.

Homes – general comments
Support the objective for planning enough housing to meet our needs, including affordable housing to rent or buy.
I object to needs being directly driven by future economic assessments, the direction of travel of the plan should be as much balanced by the climate change as future economic demand.

H/HD: Housing density
Support design led approach to determine optimum capacity of sites and appropriate density to respond to local character, especially in villages.

H/GL: Garden land and subdivision of existing plots
Support for controlling the use of gardens for new development.

NORTH-EAST CAMBRIDGE ‘CORE SITE’, COWLEY ROAD,
CAMBRIDGE


GREATER CAMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN 'FIRST PROPOSALS' (REG 18)

Written Response on behalf of U&I PLC / TOWN

Monday, 13 December 2021


Classification L2 - Business Data



CONTENTS




0.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 POLICY RESPONSE 2


0.0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 This document sets out written representations on behalf of U+I / TOWN, to a formal consultation by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services (‘GCSP’) on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan ‘First Proposals’ (Preferred Options, Regulation 18, 2021) (‘First Proposals’).
0.2 U+I and TOWN have been selected by Anglian Water and Cambridge City Council (as landowners) to act as Master Developer for the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing Waste Water Treatment Works (‘WWTW’), council depot and golf driving range (to be referred collectively as ‘the Core Site’), for the delivery of approximately 5,500 homes, 23,500m2 of new business space, 13,600m2 of new shops, community, leisure and recreation space (as currently set out in the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (‘NEC AAP’) Proposed Submission Regulation 19 document). For the avoidance of doubt, these representations are submitted on behalf of U+I and TOWN as master developers rather than the landowners themselves.

0.3 Regeneration of the Core Site will be facilitated by the relocation of the WWTW, which will be funded from the Homes England’s Housing Infrastructure Fund, and which is currently going through a Development Consent Order approval process. Anglian Water will be submitting separate representations to the First Proposals, on this specific element.

0.4 U+I/TOWN have been actively involved in the policy formation process of the NEC AAP and are therefore looking to ensure there is policy consistency between the NEC AAP Proposed Submission and First Proposals documents.

0.5 Consideration will need to be given to the prospect of policy inconsistencies between the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (‘GCLP’) and NEC AAP.

0.6 As a point of broad principle, we would request that relevant GCLP policy (particularly where performance standards are stated) provides appropriate wording that defers to more area/site-specific policy, where it is being formed in other Development Plan Documents, such as NEC AAP. In the event of any inconsistency, this will ensure that there is a clear understanding over which policy takes preference. For instance, if a 20% biodiversity net gain (‘BNG’) target is ultimately adopted in GCLP policy, and a minimum 10% BNG is sought in NEC AAP, then there would be a clear signal in the GCLP policy that the NEC AAP policy is the correct standard to apply.



1.0 POLICY RESPONSE

Policy S/JH: Level of Jobs and Housing
OBJECT
1.1 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. 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 economic growth (that is needed to meet the objective of doubling GVA by 2040) and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review). At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.
1.2 These factors support a significantly higher number of homes than are proposed in the preferred ‘medium plus’ growth option of Policy S/JH. It is considered that the ‘medium plus’ growth option makes insufficient upward adjustments to the housing requirement (from Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance) to take into account growth strategies, strategic infrastructure improvements and housing affordability in Greater Cambridge.
1.3 It is suggested that the emerging GCLP should have selected the higher growth level option to support economic growth, address housing affordability, and reduce in-commuting. A higher growth level option would be consistent with the Government’s aspirations for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.
1.4 It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.


Policy S/DS: Development Strategy

SUPPORT

1.5 We broadly support this approach, given that it identifies North-East Cambridge for the creation of new compact city district on brownfield land, noting that it has already been identified for homes and jobs growth.
1.6 However, we are extremely concerned by the ‘Homes’ target for NEC that is stated in the table on page 32, which refers to 3,900 homes between 2020 and 2041. Fundamentally, this is at odds to the trajectory that has been agreed with Homes England as a pre-requisite for the substantial public funding that has been agreed in principle to relocate the WWTW.
1.7 We would therefore instead support a policy that recognises 5,600 homes will be provided on the Core Site by 2041. Consideration will also then need to be given to other housing that is expected to come forward within the NEC AAP.



Policy S/NEC: North-East Cambridge

SUPPORT

1.8 We support this approach but would request that GCLP policy for S/NEC is entirely consistent with NEC AAP. A simple policy that specifies reference to NEC AAP will enable GCLP policy to remain up to date, as and when changes are made through the examination and adoption process.
1.9 We would note that Policy 1 of the NEC AAP Proposed Submission states ‘approximately 8,350 new homes, 15,000 new jobs’, as opposed to ‘up to’ as set out in S/NEC.
1.10 S/NEC policy should therefore be amended to refer to ‘approximately’ and provide a clearer link to NEC AAP.


Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

OBJECT

1.11 The policy wording suggests that there will be a requirement for development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain, which has been based on the South Cambridgeshire District Council Doubling Nature Strategy (2021), the draft Cambridge City Council Biodiversity Strategy 2021 – 2030, and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Environment Principles (2021).
The Environment Act 2021, however, states that a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain should be achieved, and specifies the three forms for doing so:

- Post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat;

- the biodiversity value, in relation to the development, of any registered offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development;

- the biodiversity value of any biodiversity credits purchased for the development;

1.12 Whilst U+I/TOWN recognise the importance in providing significant biodiversity improvements through development, it is considered that the mandatory minimum limit should reflect the legislative target. However, policy could still actively encourage schemes to exceed the minimum, recognising that those that do will be considered as a planning ‘benefit’ of development in sustainability terms (the greater the increase, the greater the weight attached to the assessment of benefit in any planning balance).
1.13 In terms of implications for the Core Site in North-East Cambridge, the NEC Ecology Study (2020) recommended that a target for a net gain of 10% is applied for all developments within NEC. Where this is not achievable within the site boundary then offsite measures should be provisioned.
1.14 By way illustration, a 20% gain to the 36.76 biodiversity units that have been identified in the Ecology Study would result in the need to achieve 44.112 biodiversity credits, in order to satisfy policy requirements. This seems highly ambitious, given the level of density that will need to be achieved across the Core Site to meet NEC strategy objectives. We will continue to make representations on this point as the NEC AAP progresses. GCSP must also consider alternatives to on-site provision where the necessary biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved on site. This could include a range of options including biodiversity net gain ‘credits’ being able to be purchased from other sites.



1.15 Ultimately, the aim of BNG is to leave the natural environment in a measurably better condition than beforehand. Therefore, if it can be robustly demonstrated that on-site provision is not achievable, the opportunity to measurably improve the natural environment of other appropriate receptor sites through off-site provision should still have a significant value attached to it.

Policy WS/HD: Creating Healthy New Developments

SUPPORT

1.16 We broadly support the 10 principles for creating healthy places. The vision for North-East Cambridge is of a healthy, inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a vibrant mix of high quality homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods.
1.17 One of the five strategic objectives of the NEC AAP is for a healthy and safe neighbourhood and notes the principles of the Health New Towns programme.

Policy WS/MU: Meanwhile Uses During Long Term redevelopments

SUPPORT

1.18 We support the inclusion of a Meanwhile Use policy and agree that it can play an important role on strategic development sites. Phases of development can occur over a significant period of time, and therefore utilisation of vacant/redundant land/buildings for social and/or economic purposes can help activate an area and provide short/medium term benefits that might not otherwise be realised.

Policy GP/LC: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character

COMMENT

1.19 The policy notes that ‘the edges of Cambridge and the villages are an important area of transition which require sensitive landscaping to protect the setting of the settlements and to provide a well- defined edge which respects townscape and the countryside beyond’.
1.20 The Core Site at North-East Cambridge will need to be planned to a high density in order to fully achieve the the strategic objectives of the NEC AAP, as well as to hit the quantum of development required under Homes England’s Housing & Infrastructure Fund. This will require a number of buildings that are taller than may otherwise be commonly found in the north of Cambridge (including surrounding villages, such as Milton). The masterplan for the Core Site will take great care in how its development edges interface with the landscape and setting of nearby settlements, as well as adjoining ‘bad neighbour’ uses currently in existence. The policy will need to recognise the strategic objectives of NEC AAP and avoid imposing conditions that could unreasonably restrict development.

Policy GP/QD: Achieving High Quality Development

SUPPORT



Policy GP/QP: Establishing High Quality Landscape and Public Realm

SUPPORT


Policy J/NE: New Employment Development Proposals

SUPPORT

1.21 We broadly support the intent of the policy but consider it essential that GCSP takes a more ambitious approach in seeking to capture and accommodate the substantial demand in office, R&D, lab and associated manufacturing space in the Greater Cambridge area. There is a need to provide sufficient supply in order to meet the balanced homes/jobs requirements and to reflect the high employment density and employment skills these uses engender.
1.22 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Spatial Options Assessment (Housing and Employment Relationships Nov 2021), upon which the homes and jobs growth of the First Proposals has been based (‘Central Growth’), considered a Higher Growth option of 78,742 jobs in the Plan Period. It
noted that ‘this is a plausible but more aspirational growth outcome’. We believe that the Higher Growth option should be pursued to reflect the Combined Authority’s commitment to doubling GVA by 2040 and capitalise on the significant appetite for research/knowledge-based, commercial development in the City.

Policy J/AW: Affordable Workspace and Creative Industries

SUPPORT

Policy H/HD: Housing Density

SUPPORT

Policy H/CB: Self and Custom-build Homes

OBJECT

1.23 The concern we have with this policy is the ability for the Core Site scheme to comply with the amount of Self-build/custom build being sought, given the high-density development that is envisaged. We would seek reference in the policy to wording that reflects the relevant policy in the NEC AAP i.e. to support ‘custom-finish’ as well.


Policy I/ST: Sustainable Transport and Connectivity
SUPPORT

Gladman are supportive of the efficient use of land, as required by paragraph 124 of the NPPF (2021):
“Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:
a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it;
b) local market conditions and viability;
c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use;
d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and
e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.”
Paragraph 125 also highlights that, ‘where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.’

See attached comments.

Taylor Wimpey are supportive of this policy in that no density figure is stipulated, with this needing to be appropriate to each site specifically, taking into account local character and the need to provide higher densities where appropriate in order to accord with the requirements of the NPPF to boost supply of housing and make best use of land.

Countryside are supportive of this policy in that no density figure is stipulated, with this needing to be appropriate to each site specifically, taking into account local character and the need to provide higher densities where appropriate in order to accord with the requirements of the NPPF to boost supply of housing and make best use of land.

We broadly support this policy, as long as standards for accessible green space provision are met (see also
BG/EO). Where people do not have private gardens, it is especially important that opportunities for local food growing - such as allotments, community farming schemes - are provided. We note that building height is not mentioned in this section (although it is covered elsewhere): a drive for higher housing density must not
override considerations such as landscape impacts from inappropriately tall buildings. The building heights initially proposed for NE Cambridge proved unacceptable to the public in the first round of consultation, and have been reduced in the next draft.