Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

• The Local Plan must prioritise the construction of high quality ‘affordable’ homes (the current policy of 40% should be continued), and the percentage agreed at any planning approval must not be amended downwards as a result of spurious ‘economic viability’ assessments by developers. The ‘affordable’ homes (whether shared-equity or for rent) must be integrated into the wider development to help social unity. Green spaces and adequate gardens are essential to provide an environment that is healthy, promotes community and a place to be proud of. • The variety of housing options should be expanded to include both cohousing and self-build.

No, somewhat disagree

• To provide a higher number of homes presupposes that the economy will grow as predicted, and is desirable. This is highly contentious and ignores the question of whether wider resource restrictions will eventually limit growth. It also ignores the question of whether such growth will result in a Greater Cambridge that maintains the present quality of life (let alone an improvement to it), and the quality of the the built and natural environment. Will we have shot the goose that laid the golden egg? • An increase in the Greater Cambridge housing stock of 50% in just 20 years is not remotely desirable, and may not even be deliverable.

• This may be outside the abilities of the two councils to provide, but we need more frequent, more reliable, and cheaper public transport. A single ticket from Fulbourn to Cambridge is £3.40. Recent visits have shown that a bus ticket in Rome costs just 1.5 Euros, while in Nice a book of ten tickets can be had for 10 Euros. There is no limit on the length of journey, and connections to other services can be made within 100 minutes in Rome or 75 minutes in Nice. Is it really impossible in Cambridge? • Although claiming to be the cycling capital of the UK, the cycling infrastructure is still, in many places, very poor, especially towards the edge of Cambridge and out to the villages. The cycle path/shared pavement surfaces are often bumpy, insufficiently wide, and with difficult junctions, resulting in a slow ride. Past improvements are very welcome, but are still located in relatively short stretches – longer journeys of more than a few miles (or less) usually encounter a wide variety of unsuitable surfaces and junctions. The present infrastructure is unlikely to tempt other than committed, regular cyclists to venture out. • Ample, covered, safe cycle storage at dwellings must be provided. A three bedroom house could have four or five people living there. Space for five cycles (easily accessible) should be the norm for such a house, including proper access for cargo bikes. If one or two spaces are not used, then residents will always find a good use for them. You must make it easy for people to make the decision to use a bike. • Recently, in Fulbourn, planning approval was given for a housing scheme with storage levels well below this. For example, first floor one-bedroom flats were approved with space for just one bike which was, amazingly, located in the ground floor hallway of the stair. Policies should be written that enable officers to refuse such applications.

• New water infrastructure is the most pressing necessity for Greater Cambridge, even for the growth proposed in the 2018 Local Plan. There is obviously insufficient water in the chalk aquifer to meet the needs of a growing population (even with the best water-saving devices and encouragements to save water), to allow for abstraction for farmland, and to provide sufficient water to sustain the ecology of our streams and rivers. • In Fulbourn, our springs and the adjacent ditches in the Fulbourn Fen Nature Reserve are now dry at the 15m contour, even after a relatively wet winter period. The spring at Poor Well, the lowest point in the village at the 10m contour, has been running in the winter but can become sluggish in a dry, hot summer. The water that is seen running in the Nature Reserve (a significant site for wild orchids, particularly marsh orchids) is entirely the result of remote borehole augmentation and the water quickly disappears when the pumps are turned off. This is not ecologically sustainable and will have a major impact on the flora and fauna in the long term – a higher water table needs to be restored, urgently. As the name suggests, Fulbourn Fen Nature Reserve was once part of the Fens, but the unsustainable water abstraction from the local aquifer has caused the site to dry.

No

• The Green Belt is there for important purposes, and development can only be appropriate under “very special circumstances”. It is important that Cambridge remains a compact, relatively small city with the Green Belt providing a green, rural setting, easily accessible. A detailed review of the inner Green Belt boundary was accepted by the Planning Inspector at the 2018 Plan. There can be no justification for this to change just two years later. • The Green Belt is also very important to the setting and character of Fulbourn, bringing the countryside right into the village, and providing important views out into the wider landscape. This was strongly supported by a Planning Inspector in 2016 when a proposal for housing development on land to the north of Lanthorn Stile was refused permission. • Sustainable development outside the Green Belt can be achieved without major climate impacts if the necessary carbon-free travel options are planned for.

Restrict further

• The answer to this question will depend on the particular circumstances of the village. For Fulbourn, further development on the edge of the village, over and above that already given outline permission, must be avoided. Fulbourn has an unusual road infrastructure (six roads radiating towards the centre) and a tight village centre with inadequate parking. Until the village has assessed the impact of current approvals, once built, no further expansion should be considered. In addition, development on the edge of the village could significantly change the character of the village by altering its relationship to its Green Belt, countryside setting. The Village Design Guide SPD reinforces that assertion.

Restrict further

• Within a village such as Fulbourn, a Minor Rural Centre, even a 30 homes development (as presently allowed) could have a significant impact on the local character and infrastructure. Policies should make clear that the maximum permitted development within the village framework is not a target to be achieved at all costs. Any proposals must be assessed against the wishes of the community, the Village Design Guide and Neighbourhood Plan, and the potential for the development to be successfully integrated into its immediate vicinity and into the wider village network. • The need for more open green space and enhanced biodiversity must be paramount. Subsequently, a smaller development may be more appropriate to the rural village character. Enforced densification begins to remove that important interplay of buildings to open space, trees and hedges, where variability is one key that identifies a village rather than a dormitory suburb.

• “Garden grabbing” and tall buildings are changing the character of our villages. By building on every piece of accessible land and allowing large blocks of three storeys or more, some parts of villages take on a suburban image. • In Fulbourn, the main road into the village from Cambridge has been spoilt by the construction of several, poorly-designed blocks of 3-storey flats with ill-formed roofs and large, glazed stairwells visible from the street. It is hoped that the Village Design Guide will prevent future such errors of judgement, if enough weight is given to their content.

• Whether sites on the edge of Cambridge, not in the Green Belt, are suitable for development must depend on an analysis of each potential site. Cambridge Airport, for example, if developed, must include a significant amount of space for parkland and large wilder, biodiverse areas. This is essential if the Local Plan themes of ‘climate change’ and ‘biodiversity and green spaces’ are to be more than just aspirations. The impact on nearby villages must also be fully considered. Fulbourn and its Fen Nature Reserve is only a ten minute drive from the airport site. There is the potential for an increase in the visitors (especially dog walkers) to the reserve for which its access, car parking and the site itself is ill-equipped. Commercial dog walkers can already sometimes be seen with numerous dogs, running free in the woodland and the meadows of the SSSI. • Therefore, the new Local Plan must also plan for other areas of natural landscape to be created away from the development site, but within easy reach, to spread the demand. This may well mean that agricultural land needs to be used for this purpose, and this cost must be recognised.

• We strongly oppose this proposal. Already large areas have been taken out of the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge and more are included in the 2018 Local Plan. If more is taken then the purpose of the Green Belt will be lost, including easy access to the countryside for city residents. Building on the Green Belt would also be incompatible with the proposed Big Themes. New settlements must be the preferred option with the question of sustainability resolved by the provision of high quality, affordable, green public transport from the very beginning. • For Fulbourn, situated very close to Cambridge, further development in the Green Belt is of great concern. The urban edge of Cambridge has crept towards the village over several years, much of it in the Green Belt. The Beechwoods Estate, the Tesco supermarket, Fulbourn Hospital expansion, and Capital Park have all been developed in the parish. Recent permissions include the redevelopment and densification of the Ida Darwin Hospital site, and a social club with ten 3-storey flats together with a large 3-storey care home, both on the edge of the Capital Park Business Park. All are brownfield sites in the Green Belt, but all identified as ‘departure applications’, i.e. they do not conform to both national (NPPF) and local Green Belt policies which aim to prevent overdevelopment (both in plan and height) and a loss of openness. • In addition, expansion of the Peterhouse Technology Park into the Green Belt within Fulbourn Parish is incorporated into the 2018 Local Plan, and an Exception Site in the Green Belt has recently been completed on the eastern edge of the village. This drip-drip of planning permissions, a kind of ‘ribbon development’, has resulted in densification in the Green Belt, and has gradually joined Fulbourn to Cambridge. Policies need to be written to ensure that officers will refuse applications that have a major impact on the purposes of the Green Belt.