Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The First Proposals plan is heavily reliant on the delivery of a handful of strategic developments, particularly large and complex sites. To ensure that the delivery of industrial space does not stall, and the supply-demand gap for employment space widens as a result, a pipeline of smaller developments which can deliver commercial sites quickly will be needed in the short-to-medium term.

We support the Greater Cambridge Partnership's aims to deliver 'sustainable and inclusive communities' by connecting new developments to existing transport networks. The Partnership's commitment to the improvement of Whittlesford Parkway Station will ensure that there is enhanced capacity for the projected increase in commuters both to and from Whittlesford Bridge. As such, commercial development at Whittlesford Bridge is ideally placed if the goal is to maximise public use of the improved Whittlesford Parkway Station, and there is some guarantee that the enhanced facility will be able to accommodate additional footfall generated by such developments.
We would emphasise that rail services are the most sustainable form of public transport and development should be situated in conurbations with rail connections (e.g. Whittlesford Bridge) to ensure that incoming residents can travel sustainably.

As established above, demand for both commercial development space has grown due to industrial expansions across Cambridgeshire in manufacturing, supply chain logistics and distribution, as well as the various technology sectors. However, the record low levels of available industrial and warehouse space are indicative of a widening gap between the supply of and demand for industrial space - a gap stimulated by a paucity in supply. As such, we support the Greater Cambridge Partnership's policy direction, which encourages employment development at appropriate scales on village boundaries.
In relation to Land to the east of Whittlesford Highway Depot in Whittlesford Bridge, commercial development of the site would provide a substantial boost to local job opportunities and would constitute a comprehensive expansion of the existing employment space along the site's western boundary. Furthermore, aligning with the aims of Policy J/NE and various other sustainability initiatives forwarded by the Greater Cambridge Partnership, development of the site would provide new commercial space with direct links to rail networks, therein reducing the need for incoming commuters to rely on their private cars.

Health Impact Assessments should be a requirement for major developments only. For minor developments, this information should be optional or simplified, for example through the use of a short questionnaire (similar to the Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Checklist).

The adoption of a green infrastructure standard should be a recommendation, not a requirement. Developments should not be opposed where all reasonable steps have been taken to protect and incorporate green infrastructure.
Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in an SPD.

What support will be available for developers in seeking to meet the high standards proposed? Will the potential impact on viability be taken into consideration? Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in an SPD.

Draft Policy CC/NZ sets a high threshold of 150 homes for calculating whole life carbon emissions. Support should also be expressed for developments of <150 dwellings where this information is provided voluntarily.
What support will be available for developers in seeking to meet the high standards proposed? Will the potential impact on viability be taken into consideration? Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in a supplementary planning document (SPD).

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. To ensure that local housing needs can be fulfilled and prevent any further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the 'open countryside'. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Although sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm (e.g. Whittlesford). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality development with extensive landscaping that would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
Overall, a carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.

The widespread promotion of Neighbourhood Plans (page 24) 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.

We support the new policy area S/SCP/WHD Whittlesford Parkway Station Area, Whittlesford Bridge however due to the sustainable location we believe this policy area should be expanded eastwards to include the land to the east of Whittlesford Highways Depot. This site immediately adjoins the policy area S/SCP/WHD and inclusion of this site would act as a very logical extension.
Furthermore, the policy is limited to "redevelopment" of the existing built up area and the inclusion of the adjoining, well contained site to the east would facilitate much needed further growth. The greenfield site would support the strategy and follow the redevelopment of the brownfield and as it is an unconstrained site can be delivered in a timely manner.