Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Nothing chosen

The Local Plan should resist rapid and unrestricted growth beyond the required level. This would be likely to impact both the historic and natural environment in unacceptable ways and would undermine commitments made in policy to environmental protection, reducing carbon emissions, combatting climate change, and conserving natural resources. Many existing services and facilities are operating at their limits (including visitor facilities at Trust properties) and the impact of additional population pressure on local community infrastructure is also likely to be harmful if capacity fails to match demand.

Infrastructure planning and the responsible use of natural resources are critical to delivering sustainable growth. The scale of investment required is a significant challenge for the Cambridge local authorities and the Local Plan should identify how demand will be managed. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority plays an essential role in terms of identifying regional priorities, particularly in relation to transport infrastructure. The report of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) considers this to be the single most important infrastructure priority in the short to medium term and calls for a package of transport and other infrastructure projects to alleviate the growing pains of Greater Cambridge. The report also cites examples of good placemaking elsewhere which demonstrate that if transport and new housing are well-planned, then economic, social and environmental benefits can be achieved. Other key challenges identified in the report include water stress and flood risk and an overall water deficit across the region. Water Resources East (WRE) is the lead body tasked with looking at these problems and co-ordinating the region’s response. Established in 2019 as part of a new national water resource management initiative, it is working with the Environment Agency, water companies, local authorities and others, including environmental organisations, to address the twin challenge of climate change and population growth. The Local Plan should identify these challenges, reference regional planning initiatives, and address the implications for development in terms of surface water management and capture and managing demand, and the role of developers.

Nothing chosen

Green Belt policy is predicated on the principle of permanence, and the Cambridge Green Belt has proved effective at protecting the historic landscape setting of the city of Cambridge for some 50 years. The Trust holds covenants on land to the west of Cambridge which pre-date the establishment of the Green Belt but which now benefits from Green Belt policy protection and has objected to the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) busway north of Coton. We support well designed carbon neutral transport solutions that respect the Local Plan policy purpose of protecting the historic setting of Cambridge. However, we are strongly opposed to any breach in the Green Belt in this location and have expressed concerns about the agricultural viability of land severed by the proposal. Following the recent East West Rail preferred route announcement we are now calling for a review of the busway’s business case. See also our comments on Q 45.

No choices made

Q42 Response: Development site selection should aim to limit dispersal and focus development where infrastructure can be provided most effectively; for this reason, the National Trust considers urban densification and Garden City scale new settlements are generally preferable. See also our comments on Questions 43 and 50.

The Trust supports urban densification in principle, including increased density in planned new settlements where Garden City design principles are adopted and open spaces are protected. However, we would qualify that support in relation to the densification of the planned new town at Waterbeach where we have concerns about the potential impact of increased visitor numbers on designated features at Wicken Fen, and we welcome the inclusion of recreational activity at Wicken Fen in the HRA scoping report. See also our comments on Q 46.

In principle, the Trust does not oppose the development of land around the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt provided this is linked appropriately to the delivery of greenspaces to the north east of Cambridge. See also our comments on the ‘Bigger Vision’ at Q 50.

As a general principle, the Trust is opposed to major development around the edge of Cambridge inside the Green Belt. See also our comments on Q 39.

As a general principle, the Trust supports the development of planned new settlements where Garden City design principles are adopted but we have concerns around their deliverability in accordance with sustainability objectives.

As a general principle, the Trust is opposed to the dispersal of development to villages for the reasons identified in the consultation document. See also our comments on Q 42.

The Trust recognises that development on land adjacent to transport corridors may offer a sustainable option but only where this encourages modal shift to public transport and would not compromise the integrity of the Green Belt. See also our comments on Questions 39 and 45.