Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

3.74 Opportunities for active travel such as walking and cycling should be heavily promoted to reduce the impacts of climate change, promote healthy lifestyles and ensure a good quality of life. New developments should be self-sustaining with a good mix of land uses, with opportunity to access locally places such as schools, leisure facilities, homes, healthcare services and jobs. 3.75 Evidence identifies that within Trumpington Meadows, as referenced in the Mobility Strategy prepared by Vectos that this is already happening, with 61% of residents cycling to work and 100% of primary school trips made by foot or bike. Therefore, there is a very good foundation to build on this active travel culture at Trumpington South. 3.76 The location of Trumpington South provides a unique opportunity to shape a community that is able to achieve mobility sustainably. In terms of existing infrastructure, Trumpington South starts from an excellent base, with mobility infrastructure such as the Trumpington Park and Ride, the guided Busway and an extensive network of cycle paths is already in place. Planned transport infrastructure including the Cambridge South Railway Station and the South West Travel Hub will improve the connectivity and sustainable travel credentials of Trumpington South. 3.77 The key benefit of Trumpington South is its location. Its proximity to local schools and employment centres ensures that active travel patterns through walking and cycling are viable options. It will also help reduce in commuting into the city. The Councils have identified this as a key issue to resolve with new employment expected to increase in the future, particularly within Southern Cambridge. The opportunity to live closer to your place of work has immediate benefits in terms of addressing issues associated with peak hour commuter trips. For those trips that are more distant, locating development within easy access of transport corridors, such as existing cycleways, the busway and future CAM network, will minimise car use. 3.78 The Masterplan for the site will incorporate an approach that embraces local living and active and shared mobility, with car free zones. The principles start with low car parking provision and centralised parking locations, with electric charging points. 3.79 This approach places less priority on the car and frees up opportunity to create environments that encourage walking and cycling, making these the most obvious and convenient choice of travel. The provision of active travel corridors through the development with priority over vehicles can be provided making vehicle movements a secondary consideration. This allows for greater green infrastructure and safer neighbourhoods. Furthermore, in the event that car use drops, the space will be flexible to provide opportunities for other uses. 3.80 Mobility Hubs are one of the best ways of providing and managing services, acting as a multi-modal interchange, including connecting with public transport for seamless journey planning. The Mobility Strategy provides further information on the proposed Trumpington South hub proposed, but it is envisaged it could also offer travel information, co-working space, café, bike repair, lockers and other facilities to act as a community hub and offering a financing model which is sustainable. 3.81 The proposed mobility strategy promoted for Trumpington South addresses all four of the Local Plan themes in terms of managing climate change, providing opportunities to increase biodiversity, promotes health and wellbeing and supports quality places.

3.82 Priorities for new infrastructure should promote a reduced reliance on cars and promotion of active and sustainable travel. There are a number of initiatives in the pipeline for new infrastructure, which are steering towards the right direction, including: • Cambridge South West Travel Hub • Cambridge South Railway Station • East-West Rail • Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) • Smarter travel initiatives • Cambridge South East Transport corridor 3.83 Active travel corridors within and beyond developments should take priority over vehicles, prioritising walking and cycling. In addition, infrastructure such as a micro consolidation centre to help promote virtual mobility, a community concierge in a high profile location or a mobility hub are all alternative methods of promoting sustainable travel within new transport related infrastructure. These form part of the proposals for sustainable travel at Trumpington South, including the Cambridge South West Travel Hub which Grosvenor is supporting the delivery of.

3.84 Grosvenor supports the innovative and extensive approach the Councils have taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. 3.85 Grosvenor has a successful record of working with the Councils and local employers. Furthermore, as part of its Corporate Responsibility principles, Grosvenor has been exploring ways to encourage broader and deeper engagement on its development proposals.

Nothing chosen

3.86 Planning for a 20 year period time scale allows for recognition and appreciation of some of the longer term strategic issues facing the region. However, being able to create certainty beyond the 15 year time period on issues such like housing is more challenging and difficult. Technology will also change immensely over this period so we cannot be certain that the mobility solution for today will be suitable in 20 years’ time. 3.87 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that strategic policies should be prepared over a minimum 15 year period and a local planning authority should be planning for the full plan period. This is particularly relevant to the Greater Cambridge area where major improvements in infrastructure are likely to happen in that period and there is a need to anticipate and respond to them. 3.88 Grosvenor and USS broadly agree that this plan period is an appropriate response to the Government’s guidance on meeting housing needs. Even though a plan period to 2040 is supported, the importance of regular reviews at least every five years in accordance with paragraph 33 of the Framework should be adhered to. Such reviews will be important in ensuring that the Plan remains relevant to local circumstances and able to effectively guide the long-term growth and development of the Greater Cambridge area. We note that the above plan period is based on adoption of the Local Plan in 2023, and would suggest that the plan period is reviewed if the timeframe for the preparation of the Local Plan Review were to slip.

Nothing chosen

3.89 Issues in Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. 3.90 The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils’ agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. 3.91 Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential. 3.92 The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any Plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities to assist in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area.

Nothing chosen

3.93 The CPIER notes that the wider Cambridge region is committed to doubling its economic output over the next 25 years which is a strategy that Grosvenor and USS would endorse. On this basis, continuing economic growth should be captured and addressed in the next Plan. However, this economic growth should be captured in an appropriate spatial strategy which balances employment growth with housing development. Cambridge already has a significant range of key employment areas, many of them in South Cambridge. Many of those employment areas have expansion plans and therefore it is the sustainable option to direct housing development in close proximity to them. The location of new employment opportunities and housing needs need to be considered in the context of their relationship to sustainable transport links.

3.94 Grosvenor and USS’s key concern related to the previous assessment of the Cambridge Green Belt which formed part of the evidence base for the current Local Plan. As mentioned elsewhere in the representations, the nature of the site and its environs are changing. The alterations to the landscape will alter the contribution of the site to Green Belt purposes. This should be recognised in any Green Belt review the Council undertakes to support future stages of the Plan. Please see Terence O’Rourke’s Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal prepared in support of these representations, which makes references to the conclusions made in the LDA Inner Green Belt Assessments (2012 and 2015).

Grosvenor supports the innovative and extensive approach the Greater Cambridge Planning team (GCP) has taken to the Local Plan consultation and use of alternative tools and methods for gathering responses and engaging local stakeholders. In 2019 Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (GBI) conducted the largest ever canvassing of public trust in placemaking in the UK. As well as measuring levels of public distrust in placemaking and large-scale development, the research also unpicks the drivers of this lack of trust. We are now seeking to bring together a range of representatives from the development industry, public sector and civic society to help us act to restore trust in the planning system. Too often there is a stand-off between communities, developers and councils that stalls development, to the detriment of all. To understand the issue, we conducted the largest ever canvassing of public trust in placemaking in the UK, which found that trust in the planning system is almost non-existent. When it comes to planning for large-scale development just 2% of the public trust developers to act in an honest way and only 7% trust local authorities to make decisions in the best interests of the area. Below is a summary of the findings: About the research Incorporating social media analysis, a series of two dozen qualitative interviews with councillors, developers and members of the public and business community as well as a focus group with community leaders, the first stage of the research saw Grosvenor looking to understand and map out the different facets of the planning process through the eyes of different stakeholders. This informed a second stage of research in the form of an online survey run by YouGov with 15 closed questions and a nationally representative sample of 2,183 members of the public in March 2019. This represents the largest ever canvassing of the public on trust in the planning system. Key findings Just 2% of participants said they trusted developers to act in an honest way when it comes to large-scale developments. The remainder were divided between distrusting developers (49%) and feeling apathy towards them (40%), with 9% saying they don’t know. The picture for local authorities is not too dissimilar. When asked whether they trusted their local council to make decisions on large-scale development that are in the best interests of their local area, just 7% of respondents said they did. Over a third (36%) said that they distrusted their council, while half (50%) expressed apathy. The remainder 7% said they don’t know. People who have interacted with the planning system are more likely to think large-scale development has had a negative impact on their local area. Of those respondents who had either shared their views with the local council on a development project, or attended a public consultation, over 60% (66% and 62% respectively) felt negatively about the impact of development on their local area. The biggest driver of distrust in developers was the perception that they only care about making or saving money: 75% of respondents identified it as a reason for their lack of trust. The second most commonly cited reason for distrust was the belief that developers do not care about the needs of the local community (54%). The drivers of distrust in local authorities are broader-based. A considerable number of participants (49%) cited councils only caring about making or saving money, while 43% believed that councils are not held to account on their promises. Councils’ perceived failure to represent the requirements of the local community is also a key driver, 39% of respondents saying councils don’t care what the local community needs, and another 38% saying they don’t understand what that community needs. When asked for ways to increase public trust in large-scale development, respondents cited the most popular as ways to hold private developers (74%) and local authorities (72%) to account for what was promised. More opportunity for local people to influence the outcome of development (71%) and more transparency from private developers through the planning process (69%) were also popular.

Nothing chosen

Planning for a 20 year period time scale allows for recognition and appreciation of some of the longer term strategic issues facing the region. However, being able to create certainty beyond the 15 year time period on issues such like housing is more challenging and difficult. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that strategic policies should be prepared over a minimum 15 year period and a local planning authority should be planning for the full plan period. This is particularly relevant to the Greater Cambridge area where major improvements in infrastructure are likely to happen in that period and there is a need to anticipate and respond to them. Grosvenor broadly agree that this plan period is an appropriate response to the Government’s guidance on meeting housing needs. Even though a plan period to 2040 is supported, it is essential that there should be regular reviews at least every five years in accordance with the legal requirement under Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and paragraph 33 of the Framework should be adhered to. Such reviews will be important in ensuring that the Plan remains relevant to local circumstances and able to effectively guide the long-term growth and development of the Greater Cambridge area. We note that the above plan period is based on adoption of the Local Plan in 2023, and would suggest that the plan period is reviewed if the timeframe for the preparation of the Local Plan Review were to slip.

Nothing chosen

Issues in the Greater Cambridge and Peterborough area identified in the CPIER include: doubling its economic growth in the next 25 years, catering for an ageing population, clean growth and creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone. The need for new housing in Cambridge is high and the adopted Local Plan sets out how the objectively assessed need for 14,000 additional homes between 2011 and 2031 can be achieved. The Councils agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the housing trajectories for both areas be considered together for the purposes of housing delivery, including calculations of 5 year housing land supply. Other cross boundary initiatives includes the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which signifies an area of significant economic potential, including a joint declaration of ambition between government and local partners. The emerging Local Plan should promote policies which encourages the growth of this joint declaration and build on its economic potential. However, in order to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to meet all types of accommodation and tenures. This also includes making provision in Local Plans for a spread and distribution of sites throughout the plan area in the most sustainable locations. The NPPF is very clear that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground” (paragraph 35). Any plans that fail in this regard would be found to be unsound. For this reason and given the geographical nature of the Greater Cambridge area, it will be essential that the Local Plan Review is prepared in very close collaboration not only between Cambridge and South Cambridge but other adjoining local authorities, such as Uttlesford DC, to assist not only in meeting the strategic housing requirement of the wider area but also in the provision for and delivery of key infrastructure to support a more sustainable and zero carbon future