S/JH: New jobs and homes

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Evidence Study (November 2020) identifies a higher jobs growth forecast and due to the significant number of jobs further housing will be needed. Therefore, it is considered further homes are needed than 44,400 given the strong relationship between homes and jobs and this is a reasonable alternative. We agree that homes should include all types, sizes and tenures of housing which should also include self-build given the significant demand.

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Evidence Study (November 2020) identifies a higher jobs growth forecast and due to the significant number of jobs further housing will be needed. Therefore, it is considered further homes are needed than 44,400 given the strong relationship between homes and jobs and this is a reasonable alternative. We agree that homes should include all types, sizes and tenures of housing which should also include self-build given the significant demand.

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Evidence Study (November 2020) identifies a higher jobs growth forecast and due to the significant number of jobs further housing will be needed. Therefore, it is considered further homes are needed than 44,400 given the strong relationship between homes and jobs and this is a reasonable alternative. We agree that homes should include all types, sizes and tenures of housing which should also include self-build given the significant demand.

How will you provide water for massive amount of building? This should not be passed onto the water companies to manage. The chalk aquifer is obviously being over abstracted. Who wants to live in an area where the Green Belt is built over? What percentage of new housing is owned by people living in Cambridge as opposed to overseas ownership for investment? What percentage of people live in Cambridge but commute to London? Developers are building ugly, unsustainable, mansions all over Cambridgeshire. We need much higher standards for the 21st century.

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Evidence Study (November 2020) identifies a higher jobs growth forecast and due to the significant number of jobs further housing will be needed. Therefore, it is considered further homes are needed than 44,400 given the strong relationship between homes and jobs and this is a reasonable alternative. We agree that homes should include all types, sizes and tenures of housing which should also include self-build given the significant demand.

The problem in Cambridge is unaffordable housing. The solution to that isn’t necessarily to build more houses, in fact that could worsen affordability. The housing crisis is a matter of policy and ownership rather than a question of the number of homes in existence (see Land for the Many report). Priorities should include: building more council housing, a return to secured tenancies, introduction of a land value tax. Green jobs should be prioritised over high-tech jobs in part because of the evidence that high-tech employment led growth is not beneficial to low-skilled workers (see High Tech report)

It is important to reduce commuting/long distance commuting by car and to recognise different working patters post covid (i.e working from home).

Green Belt status was granted because of exceptional circumstances. It preserves the nature of the parish and is a major reason to live here.

A nearby post office and train station are not exceptional circumstances that warrant the destruction of Green Belt land.

Traffic congestion caused by the level crossing regularly blocks Hinton Way, increasing pollution. Don't worsen it.

No reasons in the proposal can be considered exceptional.

All arguments would mean perpetual pain for village residents and have weak foundations.

One entrance via Mingle Lane would result in hundreds more vehicles clogging up & polluting the conservation area.

The reports “Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Evidence Study” and “Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report” were both produced by the same consultancy team. Were their calculations independently assessed, and if so, is an independent assessment report available?
Post-COVID working patterns suggest more home working, so the need for housing close to employment sites will be reduced. Has this been taken into account when projecting housing requirements?

It is clearly an ambition of the current council to turn green Cambridge into a massive concrete biopark connurbation. That is misplaced and not what those living here want.
There are plenty of people rightly objecting to the proposed over build, so my voice is with them.
What was thought a good idea a few years ago is still not, and even more so where we are now post-Brexit and post-covid.
Those in the city too, do not want to have to travel many miles to reach the green that is so important to them.
Stop over-developing Cambridge!!

1 These representations are made on behalf of Mr K.B. Tebbit Ltd and relate to the promotion of HELAA sites Ref: 40383 – Land north east of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell and Ref: 40378 – Land to the south west of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell.

2 The Development Strategy Topic Paper (DSTP) outlines the Council’s approach to establishing GCLP housing need figure. The housing need figure based on the Governments’ Standard Methodology is 36,600 dwellings, this figure would support the creation of 45,800 jobs in Greater Cambridge over the plan period. As recognised by paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) local planning authorities can plan for a housing number in excess of the standard method figures should market trends, underpinned by evidence, suggest otherwise.

3 Greater Cambridge is subject to significant growth initiatives and investment (public and private) some of which have already been implemented, with others coming on stream in the plan period. The aims and objectives of the Greater Cambridge City Deal, the Oxford-Cambridge Arc and the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority in terms of job creation and housing growth provide important context in the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP). Accordingly, the Councils have carried out employment forecasting to establish potential growth scenarios and the number of new houses needed to support new jobs in Greater Cambridge over plan period. In principle, this approach is supported by our client.

4 The Housing and Employment Relationship Report (November 2020) (HERR) suggests two scenarios in excess of the Standard Method as follows:

• Provide for 58,500 new jobs in the area over the plan period 2020-2041. To support this growth option a housing need of 44,400 dwellings is required over the over the plan period.

• Provide for 78,700 new jobs in the area over the plan period 2020-2041. To support this growth option a housing need of 56,500 dwellings is required over the over the plan period.

5 The GCLP First Proposals document seeks to support the delivery of 58,500 new jobs and 44,400 new dwellings over the plan period. Whilst the principle of exceeding the Standard Method housing target is agreed and welcomed by our client, given the significant momentum and political weight behind funding, infrastructure improvements and growth initiatives in Greater Cambridge it is considered that the GCLP should take a more positive approach to supporting the economic growth of the area. Indeed, the economy of Greater Cambridge and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc area is of national importance and the established education and innovation sectors are of international importance.

6 The differing outputs of the two economic growth scenarios is too vast for the Councils to conclude at this early stage of the plan preparation process that the GCLP should plan for the lower figure. Indeed, it is noted that the HERR states that the GCLP should plan for economic growth within the range of the two scenarios. The Councils should plan positively through the GCLP to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by the growth initiatives and funding which is focused on Greater Cambridge. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the Councils undertake further work to establish a housing requirement within the range stated in the HERR or plan for the higher figure. There is suitable housing land available at established sustainable settlements to support the economic growth of Greater Cambridgeshire.

Neighbourhood Planning

7 The First Proposals document confirms the Councils intended approach to facilitating sustainable housing growth through Neighbourhood Planning. The proposed approach would see Neighbourhood Plans meeting windfall housing numbers, with the Councils identifying an indicative housing requirement (on an informal basis) for a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Our client objects to this approach as paragraph 66 of the NPPF makes it clear that strategic policies should identify the housing requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan Area.

8 To allow rural settlements to thrive and sustain their service provision the GCLP should set the planning agenda by proactively allocating a proportionate housing requirement to established sustainable settlements such as Group Villages. This approach will allow Neighbourhood Plans to come forward with greater clarity and transparency; and also stimulate community planning which is supported by the NPPF. Without proportionate levels of housing growth sustainable rural settlements will stagnate over the plan period and communities run the risk of seeing important services becoming unviable.

9 The GCLP’s proposed approach to Neighbourhood Planning does not comply with paragraphs 66 and 67 of the NPPF and exposes wider shortcomings in the proposed development strategy put forward in the First Proposals document. The GCLP’s approach to promoting Neighbourhood Planning is in need of significant remedy as the plan preparation process continues.

Following the changes to work patterns after Covid, how can the 58,500 new jobs forecast be accurate? Why do you need each house to only accommodate 1.3 workers?

The First Proposals reference a majority (49%) of respondents to the First Consultation question (Q32) as agreeing that a higher number of homes should be planned for than the minimum required by Government. Notwithstanding that 49% is, in fact, not a majority but a minority, this appears a material mis-interpretation of the evidence. There is an inherent bias in who will respond to these consultations based on awareness and level of financial interest. Whilst most of the general public remain unaware of the consultations (particularly at the First Conversation stage) and even those that are aware have limited financial interest, virtually every landowner and developer in the region will have been acutely aware and potentially have a very large financial interest in the consultation outcome. In other words, there will be an inherent large sample bias towards those pushing for more homes to be built based on vested financial interests. Care in interpreting results is therefore needed and simply noting a majority of respondents to an unrepresentative sample held a particular view does not constitute evidence that this view is objectively correct.

Figure of 2,111 new homes per annum mentioned here. You admit you are using pre-covid data and rejecting the Government standard models for development.

Not supported. Assessment of housing and employment needs were made before Brexit and before the Covid-19 pandemic. We suggest that these should be re-assessed. Housing aspirations have changed and major conurbations are no longer so attractive. It is recognised that personal and communal space, with access to green space, is necessary for mental and physical wellbeing.

It should also be recognised that Cambridge has a highly mobile work force, especially in the sciences and technology industries, where employees rarely stay at the same job for their whole working life. Skilled service professionals, e.g electricians, plumbers, are necessarily itinerant.

The impact on carbon expenditure, water use and flood risk due to ground cover should be assessed in the light of climate change.

The prediction of 2,111 homes produced per year is not going to have a major impact on Cambridge high house prices or the provision of social and affordable housing for the lower paid of the 58,500 jobs.

More investigation is needed on employment sites, especially office space, which has become available since the pandemic. These include office space at the Biomedical Hub at Addenbrookes Hospital Biomedical Hub, changes from retail to other use at the Grafton Centre Grafton Centre and the Dirac Building at St.John’s Innovation Park among many others.

The development targets for housing in Greater Cambridge are over ambitious in the plan period and bring a high level of risk to Greater Cambridge and the Vision and Aims of the Local Plan .

The Medium plus Growth Option is not supported, a Minimum or Medium Growth Option is recommended requiring an additional 3,000 homes (rounded & incl 10% buffer) and Medium Option an additional 8,500 homes (rounded & including 10% buffer). [figures pg.84 of the SA and pg.42 of Development Strategy Topic Paper]
Minimum or Medium Growth Option can be justified on the grounds of:
1. Sustainability - where solutions to support both the existing population and housing already in plan are yet to be resolved (eg Water, Electricity, access to Health, Transport infrastructure)
2. The impact of large population increases in Greater Cambridge as a result of an unprecedented  amount of new homes already in the pipeline, 30,000 + amounting to a 37% increase of existing homes in 2020, are yet to be known/tested and will not be known until mid-plan period and beyond. This high growth strategy may fail if sustainable solutions do not come to the fore in a timely way and the attractiveness of Cambridge for homes and business is eroded (CPIER 2018). The impact of this unprecedented high growth strategy already in progress and committed to needs to be evaluated before it is added to further. The Aims of the Local Plan : ‘Wellbeing & Social inclusion’ and ‘Great Places’ are of particular relevance and at risk here.  
3. Changes in working practices post COVID to full or partial home working and reduced daily commutes now widely recognised for a number of industries, particularly the tech industries, to be permanent. Thus, reduced CO2 emissions for existing and future forecast employees and reduced demand for housing close to work.

New homes need to be affordable to allow people to live near to where they work.

Whilst RWS Ltd support that the Council have set a housing figure higher than the Standard Method, it is their view that the Council should be more ambitious in planning for what has been presented as a reasonable and higher forecast of employment growth. This is particularly when considering the important strategic position of Greater Cambridge within the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

The Trumpington Residents' Association is very concerned about the relationship between jobs and homes.

We have a strong concern about jobs led growth without a practical limit other than market delivery. This is a strategic issue for the whole of the Plan, including the Plan Themes of 3.1 Climate Change, 3.2 Biodiversity and green spaces and 3.3 Wellbeing and social inclusion, as well as the Development Strategy which immediately follows.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

Object - whilst we have no objection to the principle of the proposals, the delivery of 44,000 new homes and 19 new sites should be increased to cover the number of houses developable under site JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston which has been incorrectly omitted from the assessment. Site 40509 performs equitably with some of the current sites included for allocation and exceeds them in terms of access to amenities and sustainability. If the assessment is to be equitable, then site 40509 must be included going forward or the existing allocations within the rural Southern Cluster and Rest of the rural area should be omitted. The reason the claim that site 40509 has been incorrectly omitted is being made is set out below:

We submitted a site under the original call for sites JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. It appears on the First Conversation Site Submission Map.

On review of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals documentation we have concerns that there has been an error in the assessment of this site.

On review of the HEELA in the First Proposals Document Library,:
• Site 40509 is Listed in Appendix 1 – Full List of Sites.
• It is not included in Appendix 2 which is the Not Deliverable/Developable lists. One therefore assumes it is considered to be a deliverable/developable site.
• A version of the site reference (40509a) appears in Appendix 3 which are the discounted sites, with the justification of it being a ‘duplicated site’.
• It appears in Appendix 4 with a detailed proforma showing it as having one Amber and two Green assessments – see attached extract.

In accordance with the information in the HEELA, we have then reviewed the Strategy Topic Paper. The Strategy Topic Paper confirms that all sites which met the Key Criteria for assessment should be:

‘• Locations with sustainable access: Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres, but also Group villages with very good Public Transport Access.
• Sites with a green or amber rating in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment’

both of which site 40509 complies with, being on the edge of Sawston which is a Rural Centre with good access to amenities and having met the Amber/Green HEELA threshold.

However, the Strategic Topic Paper makes no reference to site 40509. The site location falls under the ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’ section but does not appear in either the ‘New Allocations’, ‘Continuing Allocations’ or ‘Allocations Not Proposed to be Taken Forward’ subsections. As a new site which met the threshold for assessment within the Strategic Topic Paper, presumably it should be referenced somewhere as either included or not included?

The Strategic Topic Paper assessment refers to the need to continue with the allocation of site H/1:c. Site 40509 abuts Site H/1:C and could therefore reasonably be confused with being part of it. We had assumed the reference within the Appendix 3 of the HEELA to site 40509a being a duplicate was an administration error and that the site was inputted twice, however, with it not appearing within the Strategic Topic Paper, it appears that it has been confused as being part of Site H/1:C and therefore incorrectly removed from assessment going forward.

To address this issue and remove our objection:
• the site should be removed from the HEELA Appendix 3 as a duplicate.
• It should then appear within the Strategic Topic Paper as a site which meets the Key Criteria.
• It should appear in the assessment of ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’
• Based on the fact that it performs equally in terms of Amber and Red and is in a more sustainable location than some of the currently allocated sites within the Southern Rural Cluster, on the basis of the best performing sites being taken forward, it should be included as an allocated site.

The policy amounts to building whatever is needed to meet a jobs forecast. Saying that the jobs come to Cambridge or go abroad is an arrogant stance – people outside Cambridge also have brains (I am speaking as a Cambridge University graduate). There may well be other parts of the UK which have more brown field sites, transport infrastructure and water and would be better sites for such growth. Work with the new department of levelling up to sort this out. The UK is the most unequal country in Europe -see uk2070.org.uk for evidence.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

The widespread promotion of Neighbourhood Plans is likely to act as a constraint on development in the rural area. Research on the progress and effectiveness of neighbourhood plans found that 55% of the draft plans published for consultation have ‘protectionist’ agendas and many are openly anti-development. Therefore, there is a likelihood that this agenda will create inevitable conflicts between the national aim to significantly boost housebuilding and local community NIMBYism.

The idea of ‘top down’ housing targets being set by the local authority may also dissuade some areas from engaging with the neighbourhood planning process altogether.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

OBJECT

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal committed to delivering substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling economic output in the area by 2040 was realistic. It was suggested in CPIER that economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The National Infrastructure Commission, 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 that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge.

All 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 Cambridgeshire. The ‘medium plus’ growth option also does not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, or that the economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance.

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. The higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding, but there are existing transport improvements already planned for Greater Cambridge and further investment in infrastructure (e.g. water and electricity) will need to be secured as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.

Requested Change

It is requested that housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

Policy S/JH should adequately address the housing and employment requirements for the plan area. Greater Cambridge should reconsider planning for a higher quantum of housing. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) has recognised that the Combined Authority of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has experienced a higher rate of economic growth than forecast. This is a significant factor that Greater Cambridge must consider and should therefore ensure that a significantly higher number of homes are planned for. If the economic trend is to continue within the Plan area as established in the CPIER report, it would be a failure of the plan’s statutory requirement to make sufficient provision of housing to address the increases in economic growth that is forecast.