Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020
Search form responses
Results for The Executors of Mrs R. M. Rowley search
New searchThe question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.
No uploaded files for public display
Primarily, this should be matter for national Building Regulations rather than Local Plan policy. The adopted Plan already covers matters such as minimum floorspace standards, energy efficiency and design. There is no need for the Local Plan to widen its control of further matters in respect of housing quality. Regimes such as the Building Regulations are far more effective than plan policies in driving change and improved standards. In addition, the planning authorities need to recognise that all such policy objectives do have an impact in respect of the costs of building new homes and therefore it is important that any such policy aims are properly reflected in a new Local Plan viability assessment.
No uploaded files for public display
Residential development should be focused on villages which are well-served by public transport, particularly rail and cycle links and which are located close to existing employment opportunities.
No uploaded files for public display
It is beyond the scope of a Local Plan, but Greater Cambridge needs an enhanced approach to public transport and a strategic network of pedestrian/cycle routes linking key settlements with employment locations and Cambridge itself.
No uploaded files for public display
It is beyond the scope of a Local Plan, but Greater Cambridge needs an enhanced approach to public transport and a strategic network of pedestrian/cycle routes linking key settlements with employment locations and Cambridge itself.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option on terms of travel and climate change impacts. There are limited opportunities to locate significant new housing within the urban area of Cambridge and it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport. Some further development may be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) and there is limited brownfield land to consider but, the likely total level of new housing being contemplated inevitably means that a Green Belt review is required. This is likely to be a major and possibly contentious exercise, so we believe that the sooner the Councils grasp this decision the better. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan required the release of Green Belt land and the factors which drove that change still exist today – possibly more so. This is even more important given that the Consultation Paper floats the idea of accommodating housing above the standard method level to meet jobs growth. It is therefore apparent that Green Belt release will be required if transport and climate change objectives are to be met - i.e. significant further development should be located on the Cambridge fringe rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements, such as Histon.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: New Settlements
The location of new residential development should be based on the following principles: • In areas well connected to local employment; • In areas with access to existing/planned public transport links, particularly links by rail; • In areas with good provision of cycleways/pedestrian linkages; • On the fringe of Cambridge (see question 45); and • In key villages with services and local existing/planned employment. The reality is that the development strategy will almost certainly involve several of the growth choices presented in the Issues and Options document. We are of the view that the overall development strategy should include a clear element of dispersal to villages and that this should be to a greater extent than the current planning framework. The Council should encourage a higher level of development in areas with good public transport links, especially rail links or those adjacent to the Guided Busway, which can accommodate people who can access employment opportunities by non-transport modes and can access such opportunities in Cambridge and further afield, by sustainable modes of transport.
No uploaded files for public display
We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. This is particularly the case in close proximity to railway stations. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.
No uploaded files for public display