Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Somewhat important

• Continued economic growth must not be at the expense of the environment (both natural and built) and social cohesion (Cambridge is already one of the most unequal societies in the UK). The proposed doubling of total economic output appears to be related to the combined Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area, but there is no clear indication of how this might relate to the Greater Cambridge area (City and South Cambs). This doubling of economic output (even if desirable, which is doubtful) could take place to some extent outside the Greater Cambridge area, limiting (but not totally avoiding) impact on the Local Plan. No mention is made of the possibility for economic growth to be achieved through increased productivity, rather than a doubling of the population and employment sites. • But what is the vision for Cambridge? – is it to remain a compact city surrounded by Green Belt, or is it to expand, both into the Green Belt and with considerable densification on the outer edges of the city. We believe that the popular desire is for the former vision, a compact city. • We support the provision of employment land in the new settlements to provide opportunities for residents, but also lower cost sites and premises for businesses. But without the necessary infrastructure in place, growth aspirations need to be reduced. The impact of these developments on central Cambridge must also be considered – the new settlements are not far from Cambridge, which will be a magnet for shopping, leisure and social interaction. • Our village, Fulbourn, already has a much above average number of employment premises and opportunities, as has been identified in the writing of the Neighbourhood Plan. This has impacted on the road network and the wider infrastructure, meaning that further growth in this sector is unlikely to be sustainable.

Very inflexible

• Taking Fulbourn as an example, it currently has a good mix of shops and services located in its centre, which serve the residents well. The loss of these premises to other uses, such as housing, would begin to change the dynamic, and these commercial facilities would never return. This would, in turn, force people to travel further afield and impact on the remaining shops and services, perhaps resulting in them becoming uneconomic, especially as rent levels rise. • To encourage use of the existing shops we wish to have support, including financial, to improve the High Street, making it more pleasant, better maintained, less polluted, and less dominated by traffic.

• The effect of the growing population in Greater Cambridge will increasingly put pressure on existing rural attractions. In Fulbourn, the privately owned Nature Reserve (managed by the Wildlife Trust), parts of which are an SSSI, brings traffic from outside the village down the dead-end Stonebridge Lane, a ‘quiet’ rural road with no pavements, while the reserve also becomes a destination for many dog walkers along the permissive paths, not always compatible with its prime function as a site for nature. • Subsequently, new rural attractions need to be urgently created, both parks and wilder areas where the natural world is predominant. This will mean taking land out of agricultural use, but it is essential, both to protect existing biodiverse sites and to provide new areas which can contribute to the quality of life of the expanding population.

• 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.