New settlements

What is happening about the added vehicles to the local infrastructure? Is Teversham going to remain a village with the assurances that were given at beginning of the consultation and is Teversham going to be screened from this extra noise and pollution this settlement will cause, while also given consideration to Airport Way and how dangerous this road can be. While the speed has been reduced in theory causing less severe injuries and collisions, how much extra traffic will this road have to carry and will this mean it will be at a stand still during peak hours? Do you intend to put an extra entrance onto Airport way apart from at the Gazelle Road roundabout?
Although there is more this is a basic summary of my concerns

Reduction in allocating greenfield sites is supported. Development of new settlements should include development of public transport hubs to serve the rural hinterland surrounding the new settlement.

As set out in my comments on policy S/DS, new settlements, in general, remain by far the best way of achieving increased housing stock

It is crucial that Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne and Bourn Airfield provide significant on-site facilities for sport and physical activity. The requirements should be identified in the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy and Sports Facilities Strategy.

Greater Cambridge already have three new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield that it is envisaged will continue to be developed during the plan period and beyond. No objection is raised to this approach. Concern is however raised in respect of whether there is a genuine need for a further new settlement to be created at Cambourne in the 2030’s particularly as there have been serious adverse landscape impacts identified at this location. It is considered that a more suitable approach would be to provide a better balance across the Plan area with more development being apportioned to the rural area. Without a redistribution of housing this would lead to an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of mixed and balanced communities This could lead to a trend of the vitality and long-term future of rural communities being threatened.

If the government makes the area provide residential and business development then numbers to their dictate will have to be planned for. There MUST NOT be 1 home or business more than they mandate. The resources of the area can’t cope and there is not the capacity to develop & increase those resources to what would be needed. Developments will end up being White Elephants

Greater Cambridge already have three new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield that it is envisaged will continue to be developed over the plan period and beyond. No objection is raised to this approach. Concern is however raised in respect of whether there is a genuine need for a further new settlement to be created at Cambourne in the 2030’s particularly as there have been serious adverse landscape impacts identified at this location. It is considered that a more suitable approach would be to provide a better balance across the Plan area with more development being apportioned to the rural area. Without a redistribution of housing this would lead to an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of mixed and balanced communities This could lead to a trend of the vitality and long-term future of rural communities being threatened.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

Additional development in Cambourne will require serious transport consultations. The new homes in Waterbeach will require the same.

You can't make assumptions based on transport plans not yet developed.

The important roles which are envisaged for the new settlements mean that it is vital, for the success of the plan as a whole that these major developments come forward in a manner, encompassing both physical form and development trajectory (i.e. what is developed and when) that make them attractive for both people and firms.

In respect of housing this calls for a good variety in development densities so that a significant proportion of the houses are developed with sizeable gardens and are thereby differentiated from the costlier development sites within and next to the City of Cambridge. It also needs social facilities and amenities – schools, shops and green space – to be provided early encouraged, if necessary, by initial lower or rent-free premises for commercial uses. Perhaps a proportion of 106 contributions can be earmarked for this purpose?

In respect of employment land in the new settlements it is crucial that sufficient of the premises developed are appropriate for service and smaller manufacturing businesses that are being squeezed out of Cambridge City by more prestige employment provision or housing (e.g. proposals for the Travis Perkins site near the railway station). A growth in the number and scale of innovative, high value, manufacturing businesses is important so as to extend the innovation chain and improve feedback loops to the research base, thereby ensuring that the potential economic contribution of our area's science and technology strengths is captured within the UK.

It should be accepted that none of the settlements will be of a scale, even when fully developed, that avoids most residents travelling out for work, so attractive public transport links to Cambridge's major employment sites are vital for sustainability.

Cambourne is already very large and we wonder if it needs expanding

Hallam Land Management (HLM) are promoting land at Scotland Farm (HELAA Ref: 56252) for a new settlement. As experienced land promoters, and with all of the land being under one ownership, the Councils can be confident the site can be delivered.

This is the first submission they have made to the Councils as the land had previously been put forward solely by the landowner through the ‘call for sites’.

HLM have undertaken a considerable amount of technical work to inform understanding of the potential of the site, its effects and how they might be mitigated, and its benefits. This work is submitted through the call for sites submission of additional information (ref ZWFMGZFM) and summarised below with reference to the HELAA assessment.

The land available amounts to circa 400ha. There is flexibility as to the quantum of development that can be delivered. An Emerging Vision is submitted with the representations that includes a masterplan (also submitted separately) that illustrates how circa 6,000 homes and 60,000 square metres of employment floorspace could be delivered alongside schools, district and local centres, travel hub, and substantial areas of green infrastructure.

One of the advantages of this site is that it is a suitable and attractive location for homes and jobs given its planned accessibility on the C2C route. The balance between homes and jobs is therefore variable, and an alternative masterplan with Expanded Employment Area (also submitted separately) is shown within the Emerging Vision which would provide a larger employment area alongside the A428 and Travel Hub. This could yield an increase to 265,000 square metres of employment floorspace with a reduction to circa 5,000 homes. Both alternatives are deliverable, and the final balance and mix would need to be informed by the needs and requirements of the Plan. The key point is that there is flexibility.

The majority of the land is outside of the Green Belt, but part of the site falls within the Green Belt as it straddles the outer edge of the designation. Again, there is flexibility as to whether the land is necessary to be removed from the Green Belt at this stage depending on the scale of growth required to meet the Plan requirement and whether exceptional circumstances exist at this stage. Its exclusion from the new settlement would only reduce the quantum of residential development capable of being accommodated from circa 6,000 homes to 5,000 homes (as shown on the submitted illustrative masterplan excluding Green Belt land).

In relation to the HELAA, and the suitability of the site, the following comments are made:

Flood Risk
The HELAA scores this as ‘amber’ due to the presence of small areas of flood zone 2 and 3. However, the vast majority of the site is flood zone 1 and having a very low risk of surface water flooding. A Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment is submitted through the call for sites to illustrate conceptually how drainage would be addressed to avoid flood risk in surrounding areas through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems consistent with national policy. This work has informed a Masterplan within the Emerging Vision and the assessment of the capacity of the site.

Landscape and Townscape
The HELAA scores this as ‘red’ with a significant negative impact which cannot be mitigated, and this was the only reason for the site to be found ‘not suitable’. HLM strongly disagree with this conclusion for the following reasons.

It is noted that the HELAA commented that ‘it (Scotland Farm) would appear as an extension to the village of Dry Drayton and have a significant adverse impact on the settlement and landscape character’.

The red line boundary of the site merely illustrates the land available for development, but there would be no need for all of the land to be developed such that it might be considered an extension to the village. It is entirely appropriate for there to be a suitable buffer between the existing village and proposed new development in order to retain their separate identity and character.

The scale and location of that buffer needs to be informed by detailed landscape and visual assessment. A Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been submitted through the call for sites which considers the relationship and has informed the indicative buffer shown on the Masterplan within the Emerging Vision Document. This is proposed for discussion, and clearly is illustrative at this stage and not fixed.

The buffer can still form part of the allocation, but be designated within the policy to remain open. Further, it may be appropriate to consider whether the land between the existing village and new development to the west of Scotland Road should be designated as new Green Belt. A Green Belt Appraisal has been submitted through the call for sites which illustrates how this might be proposed in part as compensation for any loss of Green Belt arising from the proposals.

Therefore, in respect of impact on the existing village, any harm could reasonably be mitigated through the inclusion of a suitable buffer.

The Landscape and Visual Appraisal submitted also considers the impact of development on the landscape character of the area. This has been informed by site visits and with reference to published evidence.

The land sits between two ridgelines to the west and east, with the A428 forming a strong visual barrier to the south, and to a lesser extent Dry Drayton village to the north. Its effect on the wider landscape is therefore contained to an extent. Although there is an inevitable change in character, the few features of the landscape present would be retained and supplemented by new planting.

The harm is therefore not considered significant, and does not warrant the land being assessed as not suitable for development.

Biodiversity & Geodiversity
The HELAA scores this site as ‘green’ and no conflict with policy. An Ecology Representations Report is submitted through the call for sites to support this conclusion, including a version with confidential badger records.

Historic Environment & Archaeology
The HELAA scores this site as ‘amber’ due to the presence of a listed asset within 100m, with reference to the listed church within Dry Drayton, and evidence of archaeology in the area. An Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment has been undertaken and submitted through the call for sites. It concludes that the site does not fall within the setting of nearby designated assets, and use of landscaping and open space can further mitigate any potential for harm. The potential for archaeological remains exists, although these are considered likely to be of local or regional significance.

Accessibility to Services
The HELAA scores the site as ‘amber’ due to distances to services. However, the land available is of sufficient scale to deliver jobs (between 1,500 and 4,000 jobs depending on the scale of employment required), schools (secondary and primary), district and local centres, sports facilities, and park and ride, all accessible by active travel within the development as illustrated within the Emerging Vision.

Site Access, Transport and Roads
The HELAA scores the site as ‘amber’, with access being found to be acceptable in principle, and impacts on the trunk roads being capable of being mitigated. A Transport Appraisal has been undertaken and submitted through the call for sites. The Appraisal highlights the significance of C2C to changing the accessibility of the site, the potential for active travel linkages with Bourn Airfield, Cambourne, and Bar Hill, and demonstrates the suitability of access arrangements and the highway junction on the A428.

It is important to note that the site is served by existing and planned transport infrastructure. There is no requirement for significant upfront infrastructure that might delay delivery or affect viability.

Noise and Air Quality
The HELAA scores the site as ‘amber’ with reference to effects of noise from the A428 and potential for traffic to impact the AQMA.

A Preliminary Noise and Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken and is submitted through the call for sites. This identifies that the impact of noise from the A428 can be mitigated, particularly through the location of employment buildings along the boundary with the A428 which would act as a noise screen. The impact on proposed residential areas to the north would be avoided.

In respect of air quality, the site is not exposed to poor air quality. The effects of traffic generated by development on the AQMA’s within Greater Cambridge would also be mitigated by the inclusion of the Scotland Farm Travel Hub on the proposed C2C route.

Green Belt
As noted above, only part of the site falls within the Green Belt, and a new settlement could come forward excluding the Green Belt land.

The HELAA notes the Green Belt Assessment scores the harm of part of the site within the Green Belt as ‘very high’ or ‘high’. A Green Belt Appraisal has been undertaken and is submitted through the call for sites. As the land falls on the outer edge of the Green Belt, the Appraisal finds it contributes little to the factors which define the special character of Cambridge and its setting. Further, there is ample scope for compensatory improvements to a small adjustment to the Green Belt boundary, including potential for new Green Belt to protect the separate identity of Dry Drayton.

The HELAA therefore only finds the land at Scotland Farm not suitable with reference to its potential impacts on Dry Drayton and the landscape. HLM would request this assessment be revisited in light of the evidence now available and submitted through the call for sites.

The allocation of this land as a new settlement would be entirely consistent with the proposed development strategy as explained below:

1. Active and public transport will be the natural choice given the development will be in one of the most accessible locations outside of the urban area.

2. The land available is of sufficient scale to deliver substantial areas of green infrastructure (circa 120ha), plus a Country Park (circa 40ha), as illustrated within the Emerging Vision. This can make an important contribution to the adjacent West Cambridge GI buffer – Coton Corridor, extending it through the land to the north towards Bar Hill.

3. The land available is also of sufficient scale to deliver jobs (between 1,500 and 4,000 jobs depending on the scale of employment delivered), schools (secondary and primary), district and local centres, sports facilities, and travel hub.

4. Its location means it can be served by utilities in a sustainable way. A Preliminary Utilities Assessment has been undertaken and is submitted through the call for sites. This identifies that necessary services can be provided to serve development in this location.

5. The distinctive character of Hardwick and Dry Drayton can be retained through careful masterplanning, and ensuring an appropriate buffer is provided.

6. Development can ‘double nature’ and deliver more than a 20% net gain in biodiversity as illustrated within the Preliminary BIA Result within the Ecology Representations Report submitted through the call for sites.

7. The Emerging Vision and the masterplan within illustrates how the density, form, and pattern of development would be used to create a well-designed and characterful place.

Its allocation would also be entirely consistent with national planning policy, particularly paragraphs 11a, 73, and 104. Aligning new homes and jobs with C2C and the Scotland Farm Travel Hub, in an accessible location close to East West Rail and where the environment can be enhanced is entirely consistent with Government policy.

HLM therefore request the Plan include a new settlement at Scotland Farm. This should either be in addition to the selected locations in order to bolster supply to meet the housing and employment requirement, or as an alternative to those selected that are not carried forward into the Plan.

HLM recognise that the scale of growth possible at Scotland Farm could contribute to meeting needs up to, and beyond, 2041. There is therefore flexibility as to how much development might come forward within the Plan period to 2041 both in terms of homes and jobs to meet any residual requirements, and/or provide flexibility.

Although the land is put forward as a whole, HLM have also made separate representations in respect of the proposed employment and Travel Hub under J/NE and Infrastructure – general comments respectively.

Finally, HLM request an opportunity to present the option at Scotland Farm to Officers and Members of the Councils at an appropriate time prior to the next stage of the Plan process.

Strong support, especially those on brown-field sites. Must be sustainable with sufficient transport, water, electricity and other infrastructure, easily accessible for work and leisure

The importance of the main sustainability and climate change objectives in the ‘First Proposals’ is such that the spatial strategy of the Plan must optimise sustainable choices adjacent to Cambridge rather than dispersing growth and encouraging increased travel. By optimising development at Cambridge East, this allows the plan to avoid the need to plan development in less sustainable locations.

Our clients consider there is more potential for new settlements as part of the development strategy in the Plan. Historically, Development Plans in the area have identified new settlements which have allowed policy makers to look beyond the time horizon of a particular Plan period. New settlements have become a characteristic of plan making in the area. The identification of a further new/expanded settlement would provide greater certainty over housing supply in the plan period and beyond. We feel there is more potential for integrating new development (in the form of new allocations) with planned new infrastructure to the west of Cambridge such as the opportunity that arises through A428 dualling.

New settlements should not be viewed in isolation of existing infrastructure and communities. It is appropriate to consider whether there are any specific opportunities for creating new settlements based around existing infrastructure and services.

The Church Commissioners for England strongly support the Councils’ aspirations of ensuring Greater Cambridge’s new towns mature into great places to live and work, that make the most of existing and planned transport infrastructure and are real communities with their own distinctive identity, with the critical mass to support local businesses, services and facilities. It is recognised that in the case of Cambourne “it will be one of the best-connected places in the region” as a result of East West Rail. Page 97 of the First Proposals identifies that “development near to this future transport hub will support delivering homes and jobs in sustainable locations” and that “it can also help make the existing Cambourne area more sustainable by increasing the range and facilities available, and providing opportunities to create sustainable new green spaces”. Again, the Commissioners agree with the Councils’ regarding the opportunities Cambourne presents in achieving sustainable growth that meets these aspirations.

Grange Farm -- an exemplary new settlement of 4,000 to 5,000 homes -- is being promoted by The Grange Farm Partnership on land to the south-east of Cambridge close to several major employment hubs. Grange Farm was not on the agenda when the Regulation 18 plan was prepared, but now that it is, it is the hope of the developers that it will be taken as the seriously beneficial proposition that it is, and absorbed into the Regulation 19 Local Plan in due course. Grange Farm has also been submitted in response to the parallel Call for Sites exercise.

The past track record of delivery on the new settlements places considerable doubt on whether the proposed trajectory can be achieved. There should be a greater variety of smaller sites that can be delivered in the early years of the plan, such as Grosvenor's proposals at Whittlesford.

Documents within the GCSP evidence base including the Development Strategy Options and Strategic Spatial Options for Testing documents from November 2020 highlight the benefits of meeting development needs in sustainable locations adjacent to Cambridge. The identified expansion into land south of the Campus offers one such opportunity. Opportunities to do so should be optimised and preferred, which will help to reduce pressure from proposals for new settlements that do not offer the same sustainability benefits, proximity to existing employment and active and public transport infrastructure offered by locating growth in locations adjacent to Cambridge including at Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

As with our general comments on how much development and where, we believe it is vital that major new settlements are served by low carbon transport options and existing major road networks so as to meet plan aims on climate change and to minimise biodiversity impact from new transport infrastructure.

New settlements - general comments Any new site-specific allocations in the form of new settlements must confirm the need to undertake an appropriate assessment of existing health infrastructure capacity, and require any applicant/developer to fully mitigate the impact of any proposals through appropriate planning obligations – and early engagement with the NHS on the form of infrastructure required.

The site-specific allocations should set out principles for delivering improvements to general health and wellbeing, and promote healthy and green lifestyle choices through well-designed places.

Shepreth Parish Council (SPC) supports the expansion of Cambourne, especially given the new EWR station, and Northstowe.

Dry Drayton is in the middle of new settlements at Northstowe, Bourn and Cambourne. Would we see increased traffic through the village?

Broadly supportive since the availability of the Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne and Bourn sites are major opportunities to meet growth aspirations with good or potential sustainable travel opportunities.

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.