S/JH: New jobs and homes

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.

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 job requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering the higher growth level option.

Abrdn strongly supports the Local Plan ambitions for 44,000 new homes and 58,500 new jobs across all employment sectors, including business, retail, leisure, education and healthcare.

We note that the wording for this policy is still be drafted in full. However, the proposal to encourage the delivery of 44,400 new homes over the plan period (2,111 homes per year), is broadly supported.
The plan outlines that it is necessary for the Local Plan to accommodate a sufficient number of new homes to ensure that the recent trends of higher house prices and in-commuting due to a lack of homes in the area, can be reversed.
However, we believe that when the policy is drafted, the number of new homes should be expressed as a minimum and that the policy should have flexibility to allow further homes to come forward in certain circumstances. Such as the planned supply of homes not coming forward during the currently anticipated timescales, or if growth in the number of jobs leads again to the current problems of higher house prices and higher in-commuting.

USS strongly supports the Local Plan ambitions for 44,000 new homes and 58,500 new jobs across all employment sectors, including business, retail, leisure, education and healthcare.

USS notes that the Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Development Evidence Study recommends retaining the site allocation for the Clifton Road Industrial Estate.

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.

Furthermore, 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.

COMMENT

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 included a commitment to deliver 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 and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist.

The preferred allocation at Site Ref. S/RSC/HW (Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford) for 100 dwellings would be consistent with the commitments to support economic growth and increase housing delivery and the supply of affordable housing. It is acknowledged that this site is identified as a preferred allocation within the preferred housing target, which is based on a ‘medium plus’ growth option, and there are no objections to Policy S/JH.

However, it is not clear whether the ‘medium plus’ growth option makes sufficient upward adjustments to the housing requirement to take into account growth strategies, strategic infrastructure improvements and housing affordability in Greater Cambridgeshire - see Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance. It also appears that the ‘medium plus’ growth option might not reflect the anticipated growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework.

The housing target in Policy S/JH should definitely not be reduced. In due course, and once the upward adjustments required by Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance and the growth aspirations of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework have been taken into account, the ‘higher’ growth option might need to be selected at the next stage of emerging GCLP. This highlights the need to retain the preferred allocation between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford.

Greater Cambridge has proposed a medium growth scenario. In establishing the housing and jobs figures the Council must take into account any needs arising within neighbouring areas. Huntingdonshire District Council adopted Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 in May 2019 and can therefore confirm that they are not currently looking towards neighbouring authorities to assist in meeting their housing or jobs need.

Greater Cambridge’s Medium Growth Scenario plans for 58,500 jobs and 44,400 homes, reflecting an annual objectively assessed need of 2,111 homes per year. It is considered that this is a sensible approach and takes into account the need to reduce commuting to the economic hubs within the authorities’ areas. However, as mentioned in the First Proposals document there is further work to be done to confirm whether this target could be achieved, especially in relation to water supply infrastructure. A letter 30 June 2021 titled ‘Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Green belt and the Duty to Cooperate’, sets out Huntingdonshire District Council’s response to meeting any additional need from Greater Cambridge. In summary it was urged that full consideration is given to all possible locational choices during the course of the preferred options consultation. Only if it is demonstrated that Greater Cambridge cannot meet its standard method (minimum) housing need, rather than any higher aspirational target would Huntingdonshire District Council give further consideration to this issue.

These representations are submitted by Pegasus Group on behalf of Clarendon Land and Development Ltd who has land interests in land west of Long Lane, Fowlmere (LPA ref: 40327). We have previously submitted responses to the Call for Sites exercise (March 2019) and Regulation 18 Consultation (February 2020). These representations should be read in conjunction with these previous comments.

Policy S/JH: New Homes and Jobs seeks to deliver 2,111 homes per annum (44,400 homes in total) set against a job forecast of 58,500 new jobs during the plan period. It is encouraging that this target has increased from previous iterations of the Local Plan and the standard method calculation. However, it is considered that this does not go far enough. It is considered important to ensure that additional provision over and above the local housing need derived from the standard method is included within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. This will provide flexibility to support the significant economic growth in the area.

The Councils are choosing to support the central jobs forecast scenario in the preparation of the GCLP as set out in the Housing and Employment Relationship Report (November 2020) (HERR). This forecast results in a need to plan for 58,500 new jobs in the area over the plan period 2020-2041 and is based on long term patterns of employment continuing, with the year-on-year growth in jobs comparable to that experienced between 2001-2017 and 1991-2017. To support the central level of employment, the GCLP puts forward a medium housing requirement of 44,400 dwellings over the plan period.

The HERR also provides an alternative higher job forecast which has not been taken forward by the GCLP. The higher forecast could deliver 78,700 jobs over the plan period, this equates to an additional 20,200 jobs when compared to the medium jobs forecast pursed by the GCLP First Proposals. This forecast places greater weight on the fast growth experienced in the recent past, with the year-on-year growth in jobs higher than that seen between 2001-17 and 1991-17, but lower than the ‘fast growth’ period of 2010-17. To support 78,700 new jobs the GCLP would need to propose a housing target of 56,500 dwellings, 12,100 more dwellings than currently proposed in the GCLP First Proposals. Given the level of investment and momentum behind growth initiatives and funding in Cambridge we consider more likely that the faster growth in the recent past will continue, rather than defaulting back to long term employment patterns continuing.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER 2018) has shown that job growth has been faster than expected and that this growth is likely to continue. The report concludes that: "it is indisputable that high rates of employment growth have put great strain on the housing market in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, particularly around Cambridge. The result is exceedingly high living costs, longer commutes, social stratification, and extra cost for business. Ambitions for house building should be increased to deal with a housing deficit that has grown up following under-projections of growth" (para 4.5).

In view of these CPIER conclusions and the HERR report, it is obvious that housing growth needs to catch-up with this faster job growth in the area in order to redress the balance between affordability and availability. It is imperative to ensure that the growth in employment is matched by housebuilding. If a correct balance between jobs and houses is not achieved, this runs the risk of further increasing house prices.

It is considered that the housing provision in the forthcoming Local Plan period should be towards the top range of 2,900 homes per year as suggested by the CPIER report and 2,825 homes per year (56,500 homes over the plan period) as set out in the HERR report.

Whilst we support the Shared Planning Service’s approach to increase the amount of growth anticipated within the region, over and above the minimum identified by the standard methodology, we believe that the level of economic growth that is anticipated in the plan period is far greater than allowed for.
Both the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review both indicate higher levels of growth should be planned for the Greater Cambridge area in the next plan period.
Furthermore, the Oxford-Cambridge Arc ambition is to create 1,000,000 jobs before 2050, this needs to be considered in more depth. The Greater Cambridge Area has a key role to play in creating these jobs and this should be factored in when analysing the anticipated economic growth of the area.

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.

HELAA site ref no. 51599 Land east of Highfields Road, Highfields Caldecote for Vistry Group: S/JH and S/DS - Please see attached document titled: Land at Highfields Road Representations / Summary.

HELAA site ref no. 51599 Land east of Highfields rd, Highfields Caldecote for Vistry Group. S/JS and S/DS - please see attached document titled: Land at Highfields, Caldecote Representations / Summary.

1. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF identifies that the minimum number of homes needed within a plan period should be assessed using the Standard Method. An alternative approach should only be used where there are exceptional circumstances to reflect current and future demographic trends and market signals. Based on the Governments’ Standard Methodology, the Council's housing need figure is 36,600 dwellings over the plan period (2020-2041). The Development Strategy Topic Paper (DSTP) outlines that this scale of housing provision would support the creation of 45,800 jobs in Greater Cambridge over the plan period.

2. When assessing Cambridge's future employment and housing needs, it is important to recognise the city's unique regional, national and international standing as a research and innovation employment centre. The Centre for Cities March 2021, ‘Fast Growth Cities – 2021 and beyond’ identifies Cambridge as one of the fastest growing cities in the UK, with more than 60 per cent of its workers coming from outside Cambridge.

3. The significance of the city is further strengthened through its various strategic alliances, including the Greater Cambridge City Deal, the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP). In the context of the GCLP, the Councils have completed work assessing the potential economic growth scenarios and the quantity of new houses needed to support this growth in Greater Cambridge over the plan period. The Housing and Employment Relationship Report (November 2020) (HERR) provides two scenarios for housing needs over the plan period (2020-2041), which are in excess of the Government's Standard Method. Scenario 1 forecasts 58,500 new jobs and a housing need of 44,400 dwellings, while the Scenario 2 forecasts 78,700 new jobs and a housing need of 56,500 dwellings.

4. 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. However, the GCLP First Proposals document is aligned with the lower employment and housing figures forecasted by Scenario 1. Our client welcomes the principle of exceeding the Standard Method figures, nevertheless, given the significant growth expected in Greater Cambridge during the plan period, it is considered that the GCLP should take a more positive and proactive approach to support the economic growth of the area. Failure to do so is likely to result in an unnecessary and unsustainable increase in in-commuting, exacerbating unsustainable travel patterns. The Councils should undertake further work to establish a housing requirement within the range stated in the HERR or plan for the higher figure.

Neighbourhood Planning

5. Paragraph 66 of the NPPF outlines that strategic policies should identify the housing requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan Area. However, the First Proposals document states that Neighbourhood Plans housing requirements would be met using the Local Plan windfall housing numbers. R2 Development objects to this approach, which is contrary to Paragraph 66 of the Framework.

6. The GCLP should proactively allocate a proportionate amount of housing growth to sustainable rural settlements, such as Group Villages. Such an approach will be consistent with NPPF with regards to identifying housing requirements, and Paragraph 79 of the NPPF which outlines that planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, particularly where this will support local services. The adoption of the GCLP should trigger the formal review of an adopted Neighbourhood Plan to ensure that distributed growth to sustainable settlements is allocated at sustainable sites within the Neighbourhood Plan Area.

Employment Needs and Job Creation

Paragraph 81 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires planning policies to facilitate conditions where businesses can “invest expand and adapt”. Significant weight is placed upon the need to support economic growth, both local business needs and wider opportunities. Great emphasis is placed upon capitalising on opportunities where “Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation”.

Greater Cambridge area has emerged as a high-tech research cluster of national and global significance. Forming one corner of the UK’s “Golden Triangle” alongside Oxford and London, Cambridge boasts 1500 high-tech industries focusing on life sciences, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and computing which have afforded the region the title “Silicon Fen” referred to locally as the “Cambridge Phenomenon.”

The presence of the world-renowned university in combination with the presence of anchor firms such as AstraZeneca, leading hospitals and other research facilities creates an environment conducive to the growth of the innovating region. The co-location of these institutions and businesses has resulted in an agglomeration economy which continues to attract companies looking to benefit from the large pool of skilled labour, complementary resources and opportunities for knowledge sharing. The presence of 25 science parks including Trinity College and Granta Park as well as Addenbrookes Biomedical Campus creates a dynamic ecosystem which fosters the potential for advancements in technologies and bioscience. As a result, Cambridge is considered to be at the leading edge of research and development, with the most patents recorded in the UK, contributing significantly to the Country’s knowledge-based economy.

The formation of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, comprising Cambridge County, Cambridge City, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge University following the awarding of a City Deal in 2013 provides a governance structure which supports the growth of the tech hub and surrounding region. The presence of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority further assists with this. The continued success of the city, home to some of the most talented entrepreneurial and visionary minds places it at the axis of three intersecting innovation corridors:

• The Oxford-Cambridge Arc spanning five counties the region will host an array of major high-tech industries and forms an important part of the Government’s economic strategy particular in the economic response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
• The Innovation Corridor (London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor) a leading sci-tech region home to thousands of knowledge-intensive companies which connects Cambridge with London.
• The Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor covers 100km across Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk innovation, commercialisation and manufacture in life sciences and artificial intelligence.

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is now even greater focus on breaking new boundaries in understanding disease biology and advancement in therapies to bring about life changing medicines and technological discoveries. It is, therefore, the function of the aforementioned corridors and clusters such as Cambridge, where the benefits of the existing agglomeration economies exist, that further growth needs to be supported and the opportunities for “cross-pollination” harnessed to accelerate scientific progress and drive the UK economy.

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP) is coming forward in the growth context outlined above, accordingly it is of vital importance that the Councils plan positively for economic growth and seize the opportunity before them in the next plan period. The ‘First Proposals’ GCLP supports the ‘central’ jobs forecast scenario in the preparation of the GCLP as set out in the Housing and Employment Relationship Report (November 2020) (HERR). This forecast results in a need to plan for 58,500 new jobs in the area over the plan period 2020-2041. To support this forecasted growth in jobs a total of 44,400 new dwellings are needed over the plan period.

It is noted that the HERR also provides an alternative ‘higher jobs’ forecast which indicates that 78,700 jobs could be delivered over the plan period. A total of 56,500 new homes would be needed to support this alternative scenario. This option has been rejected by the Councils in favour of the ‘central forecast’ scenario despite the overall recommendation of the HERR that the GCLP should plan for employment in the range “between a central and higher growth scenario”.

In light of the recommendations of the HERR, the growth agenda in Greater Cambridge and the NPPF’s focus on driving innovation the GCLP should be prepared to support job creation and economic growth greater than the target currently proposed. The Councils should allocate additional employment land to meet the ‘higher jobs’ forecast or undertake further work to identify an appropriate jobs target within the range identified by the HERR. The opportunity to deliver a world class bio-medical facility at our clients site Hall Farm, Church End, Weston Colville will assist the Councils in meeting a higher jobs target by providing approximately 100 jobs. The allocation and delivery of the site will also enhance and complement Greater Cambridge’s reputation for innovation and bioscience.

Given the importance and world-class opportunity at our client’s site it is contended that this site should be allocated for employment uses regardless of needs GCLP targets. The proposal will deliver great benefits for the local community and boost the global reputation of Greater Cambridge.

This is an unreasonable target for Cambridge. This level of increase will destroy the character of the city. It especially wrong to overdevelop North East Cambridge. It is very attractive to put everything next to the new station, but this will generate a huge increase in traffic. It is naive to think that people living there will all work there. Commuting in and out will cause chaos. Many of the new homes will be bought by commuters to London or worse absent foreign investors. Affordable housing will be lost in the mist. Develop the airport site.

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/JH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/JH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/JH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed.

Assessment of housing and employment needs made before Brexit and Covid-19 pandemic should be re-assessed. Housing aspirations changed, major conurbations not so attractive. Impact on carbon expenditure, water use and flood risk due to ground cover: assess in light of climate change and that Cambridge has extremely stretched water resources.
Major risk of developing too much and too fast, destabilising the Cambridge community. Be sure these dwellings will be occupied - many recently built are bought as investment by overseas purchasers looking to reduce the risk for their money and are standing empty.

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.

Not supported:
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 .

Affordable homes policy is essential. Families living apart due to no affordable houses nearby for offspring could result in external care requirements rather than a close family member living nearby providing basic care.

A greater variety of jobs (and possibly more of them), with a wide range of options including opportunities for those not wishing a desk flying career, to return to the 1:1 ratio of jobs in the village and village residents working from 2001. This would aid the sustainability search

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. As set out below, the employment land evidence and emerging GCLP does not plan for sufficient economic growth.

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.

Barton Willmore, on behalf of Endurance Estates, have assessed the preferred jobs and housing targets in Policy S/JH. Policy S/JH takes forward the ‘Central’ growth scenario, based on employment growth of 58,500 jobs 2020-2041, at an average annual growth rate of 1.1%. However, the CPIER report identified that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Districts experienced average annual employment growth of 2.4% and 2.3% respectively according to Office for National Statistics data, between 2010 and 2016. This approach by CPIER results in an annual employment growth rate for Cambridge which is the same as the ONS rate (2.4%), but a significantly higher rate (4.2%) is calculated for South Cambridgeshire. Barton Willmore conclude that the Councils current objectively assessed need is far below the potential growth scenarios for the area and, therefore, will need to be revised up and supported by further site allocations in the development strategy.

Therefore, the emerging GCLP should have selected a 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 the housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering a 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. As set out below, the employment land evidence and emerging GCLP does not plan for sufficient economic growth.

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.

Barton Willmore, on behalf of Endurance Estates, have assessed the preferred jobs and housing targets in Policy S/JH. Policy S/JH takes forward the ‘Central’ growth scenario, based on employment growth of 58,500 jobs 2020-2041, at an average annual growth rate of 1.1%. However, the CPIER report identified that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Districts experienced average annual employment growth of 2.4% and 2.3% respectively according to Office for National Statistics data, between 2010 and 2016. This approach by CPIER results in an annual employment growth rate for Cambridge which is the same as the ONS rate (2.4%), but a significantly higher rate (4.2%) is calculated for South Cambridgeshire. Barton Willmore conclude that the Councils current objectively assessed need is far below the potential growth scenarios for the area and, therefore, will need to be revised up and supported by further site allocations in the development strategy.

Therefore, the emerging GCLP should have selected a 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 the housing and jobs requirements in Policy S/JH are based on delivering a higher growth level option.

Cambridge city’s unemployment rate, at less than 3%, is significantly below the UK average. How does this mean that Cambridge “needs” jobs? Surely, objectively, most other regions in the UK need jobs more than Cambridge.

Under the plan, job growth is around 40%: so very clearly this job growth by far exceeds the current unemployment rate. Even accounting for Cambridge organic growth, it indicates that the jobs are predominantly for people who are not currently residents. This is not “Cambridge” jobs, it is jobs imported/relocated to Cambridge. The conclusion from this growth is that actually someone or something other than Cambridge needs these jobs and this growth.

To be clear, we believe this to be external parties: national (not local) government, external investors, and external developers. In fact, these parties are seeking to exploit the residents and the resources and positive reputation of Cambridge for their own financial or political benefit.

As residents we resent this, and we resent that the planning system forces the planning service to collude with these exploitative actors in the unhealthy continued growth of Cambridge.

Will the plan deliver housing for the residents of Cambridge that currently need housing? No. The current housing market in Cambridge is driven by investment factors, not by housing needs. This is well argued by London academic Deborah Potts in her 2020 book “Broken Cities”. The simplistic view that the solution is to “build more homes” is increasingly being recognised as wrong.

Will the plan make Cambridge homes more affordable? No. Despite significant recent home-building, the ratio of house prices to average income has increased from 7x in 2002 to 13x in 2017: clearly the current policies are making homes less affordable, as argued by Dr Potts.

Will the plan even make any affordable homes at all? No. The planning criterion of rent “affordability” is 80% of the market rate, and 60% for social rent. Based on the numbers given in the plan, 60% of the average Cambridge rent of £1250 is £750, which is above the average open-market rental price of the rest of England (£700)! Clearly the term “affordable” here is meaningless: the market rate is so high that NO homes are actually affordable. Once again this is a consequence of the market being driven by investment, not housing needs.

The Government’s Standard Method is normally used as a default. In going beyond this method we would suggest that the Plan should also:

include the total of existing unoccupied dwellings in the ‘already in the pipeline’ figure in calculating the number of dwellings required, and to explore all possible means, by incentive, penalty or otherwise, to ensure that such dwellings are occupied within a reasonable time.

adopt a policy that of all new dwellings constructed above the ‘Standard Method’ number, at least 25% should be housing for social rent

44.400 new homes is a massive number! You are talking about something that completely changes the character of Cambridge. This is heading for a London-type town rather than a small town as Cambridge once was. Can we really manage to have a town that size and still have it be a healthy place?

Greater Cambridge is dominated by high end tech and science jobs. There is not enough diversity of opportunity. For climate change we need a higher level industrial strategy across the county. Some lost industries should be onshored, reducing global transport emissions and not relying on Chinese coal powered electricity for manufacturing. Cambridgeshire as a county should play a role in that. Cambridge Science Park North presented an opportunity to create a different type of hub, with technical development roles which are lacking in this county and the country. It also had excellent transport links across county.

Were the reports which projected employment growth and the relationship between employment and housing needs independently audited? The entire projection of housing needs seems to be based on these two reports from a single external consultancy. Given the importance of these projections, there should be more than one professional opinion sought.

New projections need to take into account changed travel and working patterns post-pandemic.