Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Local Plan heritage policies should be consistent with government policy in the NPPF, in particular including: o a focus on conservation, not protection o assessment of heritage significance should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance (NPPF paragraph 189). o Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use (NPPF paragraph 196). Policies should seek to achieve the proportionality and balance sought through government policy. We remain concerned that the City Council’s Historic Core Appraisal was not based on a robust appraisal methodology, and that ‘Positive Buildings’ were identified on a subjective basis.

See the response to question 21

Advice is already provided through the NPPF: o Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations o Design policies should…be grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics o Neighbourhood plans can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development o To provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage, plans or supplementary planning documents should use visual tools such as design guides and codes. These provide a framework for creating distinctive places, with a consistent and high quality standard of design. However their level of detail and degree of prescription should be tailored to the circumstances in each place, and should allow a suitable degree of variety where this would be justified. o Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Very important

Very important – see our response to question 6. We agree with the following statements contained in the CPIER Final Report (September 2018): "Cambridge is at a decisive moment in its history where it must choose whether it wants to once again reshape itself for growth, or let itself stagnate and potentially wither. We believe the latter would be disastrous for its people and the UK economy. Therefore, we conclude that improvements in infrastructure, and further development, must start in and around Cambridge. (Executive Summary, Page 9)" "The UK Government should adopt a ‘Cambridge or overseas’ mentality towards knowledge-intensive (KI) business in this area, recognising that in an era of international connectivity and footloose labour, many high-value companies will need to relocate abroad if this area no longer meets their needs. Ensuring that Cambridge continues to deliver for KI businesses should be considered a nationally strategic priority. (KEY RECOMMENDATION #3)"

The Local Plan should be coordinated with and support the delivery of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Industrial Strategy (CPLIS). Sectoral strengths and specialisms are identified in high-productivity, high value added, sectors. Four strategic growth sectors are identified, all of which should be developed in Greater Cambridge: life sciences; digital and information technologies (including artificial intelligence); advanced manufacturing and materials; and agri-tech. The Local Plan should make provision for growth in each of these strategic sectors. Planning for the long term success of the life sciences sector is particularly important given the rapid take-up of land at Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The Local Plan should make provision for future life science development to 2040 and beyond. CPLIS sets out the conditions needed to support the development of innovation ecosystems, in which the requirements for physical space have different stages and which evolve from start-up through to scale-up, growth and maturity. Successful innovation ecosystems are dependent upon variety and availability of space at every stage. CPLIS notes that Greater Cambridge could benefit from more start up and particularly scale up space, where the development of facilities are closely coupled to local universities where technologies can be developed and taken through the early stages of commercialisation. The Combined Authority and Greater Cambridge Partnership are working to support this and the Local Plan should support this process. CPLIS also identifies key support sectors in education, health and tourism that require ongoing support through the planning process.

Visit Cambridge is leading the preparation of a Destination Management Plan (DMP) for Cambridge, which will be launched when completed later this year. Local Plan drafting should be informed by the emerging proposals for the DMP.

See the response to question 32

Yes, strongly agree

The Government’s standard method uses a formula to identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for, in a way which addresses projected household growth and historic under-supply. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are clear that the targets calculated in this way are the minimum which should be adopted, however, and use of the standard methodology is not mandatory - Government guidance makes it clear that alternative methods can be used by exception if it is felt that circumstances warrant an alternative approach. There is a clear case for an alternative approach for Greater Cambridge as the standard methodology does not attempt to predict changing economic circumstances. If used to determine the level of housing need for Greater Cambridge the consequences are likely to be: o Worsening house price to earnings ratios o Employment growth that continues to has outpace housing delivery o Unmet housing needs in and close to Cambridge leading to long commuting distances and journey times o Continued recruitment, retention and productivity problems for the University and other employers The current Local Plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, in aggregate, allocate 33,500 new homes between 2011-2031 (1,675 p.a.). The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) team consider that under the standard methodology prescribed by Government, there would be a need for 40,917 homes between 2017 and 2040 or 1779 p.a. CPIER’s Key Recommendation #5 was that "There should be a review of housing requirements based on the potential for higher growth in employment than currently forecast (by the East of England Forecasting Model)." More recently, Iceni Projects Ltd has prepared a Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (see the separate submission by the North Barton Road Landowners Group), which explores three scenarios for future economic performance: - If the Greater Cambridge economy grew at the rate it has done in the short-term since 2010, employment would grow at 3.3% pa and it would need 5,727 homes pa; - The long-term growth rate of 2.2% growth per annum, based on trends since 1981, would require 3,108 homes per annum; - planning should be based on a blended growth rate of 2.8% pa, based on short-term trends to 2031 and longer-term trends thereafter. This aligns with the recommendation from the CPIER; and sees the rate of employment growth in Greater Cambridge aligned to the intentions of the Devolution Agreement and Local Industrial Strategy for the area. Aligning the housing and economic strategies is common planning practice, with Iceni’s analysis showing that this would require provision of 101,200 homes (4,400 dpa) over the 2017-40 plan period across the Greater Cambridge area.

University staff access to housing markets in Greater Cambridge continues to be affected by the high cost of housing in the area, both for sale and for rent. This leads to harmful impacts to the University relating to recruitment, retention and productivity, and to our staff in relation to increased commuting distances and time, health and wellbeing, and the work-life balance. The housing needs of the various staff groups – academic, academic-related (professional services), research, support – can be grouped broadly into two areas: - those who are willing and able to travel into Cambridge for work: we estimate that 55% of University staff (more than 6,000 workers) commute into Cambridge for work; the proportion is increasing over time. People need housing that is affordable and which is located on transport corridors. - those that need a Cambridge location, the largest such group being post-doc researchers It’s stated in the consultation report that South Cambridgeshire District Council is exploring whether businesses should be helped to provide homes for their workers and whether there are specific requirements to provide essential local worker accommodation as part of the overall mix of housing. As indicated above, employer/key worker housing needs relate to Cambridge as much as they do to South Cambridgeshire, and related policy in the new Plan should apply to both local authority areas. The collegiate University is considering how the size and shape of the student body might change over the next 10 years. There is likely to be some appetite for growth; this may not be very significant in total numbers, but could result in localised growth for one or two colleges. We will feed in to the Plan as our thinking develops.

By deploying a sequential approach to development through a Cambridge-focussed development strategy - through some densification of the existing urban area, selective urban extensions and development along transport corridors - infrastructure requirements and cost could be minimised, the need to travel reduced, and travel by sustainable modes enabled, including walking, cycling and public transport. An assessment of infrastructure required to support spatial strategy options is required through a new Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The City Council withdrew its draft CIL charging schedule from examination in 2017 – is the intention to prepare a charging schedule for Greater Cambridge in order to secure funding for infrastructure?