Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Broadly agree but Vision needs amending to “…all our and neighbouring communities” and Aims - Infrastructure to “…to serve our growing and neighbouring communities”

OBJECT – proposed housing development of NE Cambridge is an area next to two of the more deprived LSOAs in Cambridge and requires the sewage works to move. Current proposals are a site at one of three alternative sites, all in the Green Belt. No consideration given to upgrading the works to be suitable for an urban area with new development nearer than 500m using suitable environmental controls.

OBJECT. The size of individual developments should be subject to limits until the effects of unprecedented growth already in the pipeline can be evaluated in relation to provision of utilities, health care, education, transport, carbon expenditure and climate change. Limits could be specified in line with the Windfall allowance calculated.
It is recommended limits are placed on the individual scheme size of developments in Cambridge, Town and Rural Centre’s until such time as the unprecedented amount of growth in Greater Cambridge already in the pipeline (a 37% increase in homes from those existing in 2020) can be evaluated and the realisation of sustainable solutions eg Water, Electricity , health provision, access to education etc. ; new sustainable public transport infrastructure are known/resolved.
It is recommended Limits could be specified in line with the Windfall allowance calculated. The Vision & Aims of the Local Plan are at risk should there be no limit on the size and scale of schemes brought forward and approved.
An intensified and creative approach to sustainable transport options, use / improvement of existing rail networks/services for example, is recommended to address the CO2 objectives more so, than simply squeezing greater numbers of people into Greater Cambridge. The Aims of the Local Plan: ‘Wellbeing & Social inclusion’ and ‘Great Places’ are of particular relevance and at risk here. As the CPIER (2018) report states high levels of economic growth will not be achieved if the good things about Cambridge are lost.

Partly Supportive but OBJECT to parts of this policy as being incomplete. The Local Plan (LP) states that it will include settlement boundaries around settlements, identifying areas that are considered to be part of the settlement for planning purposes.
However, it fails to include, or refer to the area between Fen Ditton and Horningsea known as Honey Hill despite the fact that building a commercial development there extends the building capacity of North East Cambridge as described in the proposed North East Cambridge Area Action Plan.
Object also that the LP also states that where planned developments, such as new settlements, have reached sufficient certainty regarding their exact boundaries, new settlement boundaries will be drawn. This does not allow for a finite point at which that certainty is assessed and allows for “mission creep”. More careful wording is needed for this policy to prevent description of boundaries becoming vague. While the LP proposes that no development would be permitted outside settlement boundaries with exception, these exceptions include development supported by other policies in the plan. This would allow incursion in the Green Belt if it became expedient to enlarge a development that already covered by other policies, such as Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge.

Support any potential for change of use of existing buildings.

SUPPORT densification of existing Employment Uses and increase at former sidings and existing brownfield land in an excellent area for increased sustainable travel to work. Support also for some increases in affordable and social housing on land outside existing and in revised WWTW buffer zone since this will assist shortages in both LA’s.
OBJECT to redevelopment all of the existing sewage works area and its buffer zone for high density housing within the Plan period. This now translates to proposals to destroy part of the Green Belt by relocating the Works.
Other modern works in UK have been amended or built to minimise their odour and traffic footprint and allow a much smaller buffer zone (ref Deephams WWTW as one example). A realistic alternative would be to amend the works. The option to relocate the sludge treatment section should be explored (ref Eastbourne WWTW as one example).
Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, in response to the CWWTP Scoping Report, has themselves stated they would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a “requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not
be referred to as such - see Page 6
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wpcontent/ipc/uploads/projects/WW010003/WW010003-000028-WW010003%20-%20Scoping%20Opinion.pdf. The Plan must not be ambiguous on this point.
The proposal to create some kind of greenwashed country park as mitigation appears to be an underhand attempt at carbon offsetting on what is much needed, productive, carbon sequestrating farmland.

Object that suggested mitigation by proposal to turn irreversibly the “Proposed Area of Major Change” into some kind of greenwashed country park. This appears to be an underhand attempt at carbon offsetting on what is much needed, productive, carbon sequestrating farm land.

OBJECT IN PART:
Abbey stadium relocation appears to assume a Greenbelt Site with worse access links will be needed instead.
Newmarket Rd Retail and Beehive areas both fulfil an important function for residents. Excluding the TESCO site is bizarre. The interaction of these two areas with the City Centre and other existing and future retail centres in GC is hugely complex. The stated focus given to density and amount of car parking may be a distraction. The organisation of the sites’ accesses should be investigated due to the congestion caused on Newmarket Rd and Coldhams Lane.

Broadly supportive but OBJECT to some of the detail. The Biomedical Campus and West and North West Cambridge developments reflect Cambridge’s specific strengths. The availability of the Airport site is another major opportunity to meet growth aspirations. We continue to work with Marshalls, Hills and SCDC as Marleigh is developing as a community as well as a building project within our Parish.

Broadly supportive but it is important that these developments do not encroach on the Green Belt and retain the individual character of Fen Ditton and Teversham villages.
We have not resolved the spatial extents of CE/R45: Land north of Newmarket Road (within Cambridge) and expect to comment at a later date.
OBJCT to move of the Newmarket P&R since this appears to assume an alternative Greenbelt Site with potentially worse access links will be needed.
We have suggested alternatives to GCP including the NE corner of the Airport site since this would have direct access to the roundabout thus avoiding congestion.
OBJECT to move of Cambridge WWTW to Green Belt land immediately north of Cambridge East since such open space will become important to future residents.