Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

• “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.

• In general, we support planned new settlements as opposed to the enlargement of villages and the densification of Cambridge. However, further new settlements should not be planned unless the case has been made for further growth in Greater Cambridge. Elsewhere we have questioned the sustainability and advisability of further growth. • New settlements, if built, must be large enough to provide education, employment, retail and leisure activities so as to reduce travel to, and dependence on, Cambridge. The centre of Cambridge cannot continue to absorb more and more visitors, whether from near or afar, and a degree of ‘disneyfication’ has already taken place from uncontrolled tourism.

• A few villages may be able to accept and support some modest growth, but this can only be determined by close consultation with each village. Priority should be given to housing people from the local community, rather than allowing growth that treats Fulbourn as a dormitory village, or benefits those buying properties purely as investments. • Fulbourn has several schemes in the pipeline, applications which have either outline or full planning permission. No further development for either housing or employment should be considered until these schemes are built and fully occupied, and their impact on the village has been assessed and understood.

• There is, as yet, no clear Vision of the sort of place Greater Cambridge should be in 30 or more years. We support the vision of retaining Cambridge as a compact city surrounded by Green Belt within which independent villages are located. Greater Cambridge should not be allowed to just grow and grow, even if better transport infrastructure is put in place. There must be a limit to growth if the area is to retain the character and benefits that are appreciated by existing residents, and make it attractive to others. This reality has not yet been addressed but is essential as it will inform all other decisions.