Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Paragraph 82 of the NPPF recognises the need to provide for the specific locational requirements of the business sector. As previously mentioned in these representations, the Local Plan should be focussing on allocating employment sites on the basis of their suitability for particular types of business rather than allocating them for a full range of business options. It is also important to offer business a choice in where they wish to be located. E.g. Some may prefer offices in the city however others may require a more rural location for their offices r. Clearly such sites need to be carefully considered as they still need to be considered sustainable with access to public transport. If manufacturing companies are to be attracted, then they will have very different requirements to knowledge-based industry. They are more likely to prioritise transport links and a location where they will not disturb residents over a location which is in the built-up area of a town or city. Therefore, Endurance Estate’s site at Melbourn should be been identified as suitable site to be allocated as a mixed-use business park within the emerging Local Plan to 2040. It will tick the boxes for many businesses due to its location, sustainable credentials and access to public transport. The land around the edge of villages located on key transport routes such as the A10 should be considered suitable for delivering employment growth especially in the B1, B1C and B2 sectors.

Endurance support the shift towards sustainable forms of transport, and these should be encouraged and fully considered through the Local Plan. In respect of Melbourn the proposed scheme will deliver newly located bus stops as part of the new roundabout proposals for accessing the site. We have made representations to support the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s proposed Melbourn Greenway which proposed a green network linking Cambridge to the surrounding villages with a high-quality walking and cycling route. This initiative is supported as it will benefit both residential and businesses alike. However, whilst Endurance Estates supports the broad principle of the development, we have suggested an alteration / addition to the proposed path trajectory such that the Greenway continues along the stretch of the A10 to the north of Melbourn. Firstly, this would create a more direct route between the settlements that bookend the trail and those situated in between, reducing journey distances / times and ultimately encouraging greater use of the pathway. Secondly should, the aforementioned mixed used scheme come forward the Greenway would serve this facility, helping support sustainable travel to this potential strategic employment location and attracting inward investment. Thirdly, the existing bridleway between Melbourn and Meldreth would become directly accessible and following an upgrade could form an outreaching branch to the Greenway’s arterial route, into the village of Meldreth. A link to Meldreth railway station would then be created, providing connections to other village stations in South Cambridgeshire; Cambridge, Cambridge North, Royston and London. This walking / cycling link would not only benefit those commuting out to Cambridge and London, but also those travelling into the established employment location of Melbourn; with the business park situated in the village, accommodating a wide range of business and light industrial uses. Whist Melbourn Science Park to the north of the village, provides high quality premises for a number of high-tech businesses including AstraZeneca and The Technology Partnership. The Science Park has also been subject to a recent planning application for expansion. Hence, the village does and will continue to attract a wide range of businesses requiring travel from their associated employees. It should also be acknowledged that, Thameslink railway services between Cambridge and London King’s Cross were upgraded in 2018 and now operate every half an hour during the week and every hour at weekends. In addition, in line with Thameslink policy and their new fleet of high capacity Class 700 trains, folding cycles can easily be stored on board, which would be of benefit to those utilising the Greenway; facilitating a seamless sustainable commute. Endurance Estates considers there is clear merit in extending the Greenway along the A10 to the north of Melbourn. If delivered, it will provide a safe, attractive and direct cycle / walking route which successfully connects with the wider transport network, ultimately promoting sustainable methods of travel.

Nothing chosen

Endurance consider that Melbourn which is ones of the larger villages in the plan area capable of delivering additional growth around its edges. It benefits by having a primary transport route which does not pass through the village. Melbourn is therefore well suited to deliver employment land, roadside services and the care/retirement village which we have identified through these representations. Employment uses can be delivered on the identified land to the west of the A10 with the care village delivered on land adjoining the existing settlement to the east of the A10. Endurance Estates has previously delivered housing growth in the village and there is scope to deliver more specialist residential growth during the plan period given the sustainable credentials of the village and to ensure there is a balance between housing and employment growth as around 22% of the population of the village are over the age of 60 and a retirement village would allow people living in the settlement to stay closer to where they currently live and free up existing family housing to the market.

As already stated, Endurance supports the options of focussing development along public transport corridors and in particular considered Melbourn to be a highly attractive location for growth. In the case of the land at Melbourn this would focus growth on the A10 corridor at one of the larger more sustainable villages where there are opportunities to invest further in public transport. Unlike a number of other locations on primary transport corridors Melbourn also benefits from an existing mainline railway station at neighbouring Meldreth and crucially the land around the edge of the village and adjoining the A10 is not located in the Cambridge Green Belt. Plans for the greenway linking Cambridge to the village are also a key consideration. These beneficial factors therefore make Melbourn a suitable location for both employment and residential growth in the new local plan under several the suggested growth options (villages, transport corridors) over and above a wide number of less sustainable locations.

There are a number of primary policies contained within the SCDC Local Plan (2018) relating to employment land and its delivery. Endurance would make the following comments: E/11: Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres This policy is relatively restrictive on B8 development in the Local Plan area. With the delivery of the new A428 improvements there is plenty of potential for where storage and distribution warehousing can be sited. South Cambs should be willing to take its fair share of B8 development in appropriate locations. It is also myth that these types of uses do not deliver significant jobs and this reference should be removed from any new policy. Many of these uses not include their call centres and ancillary offices with employees having a range of skillsets and hold a variety of positions (e.g. managerial, data programmers and goods handling). E/13: New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages This policy allows for suitable B1,B2,B8 development to be delivered on the edge of villages subject to a number of criteria being satisfied. If the Local Plan is seeking to deliver employment growth it must provide policies which encourage businesses not restrict them. (a) The need to demonstrate there are no other buildings or sites within the settlement should be removed. Businesses require sites which are suited to their needs and available to them from the land owner. The specific site should be assessed on its merits. (b) The need for the site to be previously developed land or demonstrate there is no previously developed land available should be removed as it is far too restrictive. Many businesses require a specific site location or size suited to their needs. The criteria should ask them to justify the site in respect of their specific needs rather than asking them to consider other sites which may not be suited to them. (c.) The viability of a business in not a planning matter and should not be sought to justify a planning application (d) Requiring a named user for the development is too restrictive and should not be required and maybe restrictive if the site is to be used by another business in the future. (e) Agreed – It is likely many of these sites will be identified as allocations (f) Agreed (g) This should be an objective not a criteria E/14: Loss of Employment Land to Non Employment Uses We agree with the overall assessment of sites (Inappropriate for its use; community benefits; environmental problems) to be considered suitable for redevelopment. If the site also forms part of a wider strategic site it should also be considered for redevelopment however it is likely to form part of an allocation in this instance. If the Part 1 criteria of the policy are met then there seems little merit in seeking evidence as to why an element of employment could not be included as part of the redevelopment scheme. This criteria should be removed and the replacement scheme assessed on its own merits. Any requirement to market the site for a period should be removed. It is time consuming and could create significant delays in the planning process. If a site is not considered suitable for its current use then it's redevelopment should be open to any use and be assessed on its individual merits. It would be our recommendation that any employment site which is not suited for its existing uses (as defined in Part 1 of the policy) should be allocated for potential redevelopment in the new plan where it is identified through the call for sites exercise. E/16: Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside The expansion of existing businesses should be supported and the criteria of this policy are generally supported. (a) The need to have been operating for two years should be removed. Some businesses undertake rapid growth and the local plan should be able to accommodate these situations without applying a minimum operating time restriction. (b) Why is there a need to have a named operator. This will change if a business is sold or sublet. It is unclear what this criteria is seeking to achieve. (c.) Agreed (d) Agreed (e) Agreed (F) Agreed

3.5 Endurance Estates support the Councils commitment to achieving net zero carbon by 2050. However, climate change policy and good practice is changing quickly, with climate change scenarios predicting extensive changes by 2050, much of which is dependent on government and human action. 3.6 Furthermore, it should be noted that the plan period is up to 2040, and therefore, whilst we support the aspiration for net zero carbon by 2050, the new Local Plan will be not be required to plan for net zero carbon development. There will need to be an incremental approach towards reaching the target, which goes beyond this plan period. 3.7 Therefore, the new Local Plan will need to build in suitable flexibility to accommodate these changes within the plan period. It should, therefore, incorporate flexibly worded policies, which recognise a range of measures and rapidly changing technologies and avoid being overly restrictive. 3.8 In addition, the new Local Plan should allow new developments to contribute towards carbon offsetting through off-site solutions. The Councils should work with key stakeholders to identify strategic carbon off-setting projects, which can be funded through development contributions. 3.9 The right spatial strategy can also contribute towards achieving net zero carbon by allocating sites which are located in close proximity to existing and planned sustainable transport infrastructure. This will provide new residents with a genuine alternative to the private car in order to lower emissions. The only way to change people’s behaviours and habits and achieve sustainable living is to provide genuine alternatives to private car use right from the start. 3.10 In addition, new larger scale development, which can be comprehensively masterplanned to provide new jobs and community facilities close to home, will reduce the need to use the private car. A larger scale of development also provides a greater scope to introduce new technologies e.g. for electric vehicles or renewable energy generation.

3.11 This new Local Plan must deliver effective policy which protects and enhances natural capital. To achieve this, the new Local Plan should be flexible enough to enable creative and cost-effective solutions for the delivery of net gain both on and off-site. 3.12 On-site provision and enhancement of green open spaces and habitats should be the first preference, when master planning balanced and healthy new developments. However, for some sites it is unlikely that on-site provision will be sufficient on its own, and thus, there needs to be a clear and robust mechanism for off-site contributions. 3.13 An off-site net gain solution should be allowed for by policy. The Councils’ should work collaboratively with other key stakeholders to develop a strategic offsetting mechanism to support this. This would allow for new green infrastructure and biodiversity habitats to be strategically planned. This has potential to provide a greater overall net gain, than the provision of small, uncoordinated and dis-connected new habitats across a range of new developments and locations. A strategic approach also provides greater opportunity for public benefit, increasing access to high quality open spaces and supporting improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. 3.14 In addition, the Local Plan should harness the scope that larger scale development can have in creating publicly accessible places and achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

3.15 This should come through from an up-to-date base assessment of Greater Cambridge assets, which leads to a Local Plan wide (and beyond) strategy. Development proposals can then be shaped around the identified priorities. As part of a policy framework that allows for off-site mitigation and off-site net gain, enhancements can be used to improve the wider green space network.

3.16 The new Local Plan must ensure that policy in this matter is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the required biodiversity net gain in the most effective and efficient way for each development, with both on-site and off-site solutions possible.

Yes, somewhat agree

3.17 Yes, with the right trees, in the right areas. A policy framework to seek tree cover increase but allows for a planning balance within decision-making to enable the benefits and impacts of each development to be assessed. 3.18 This could be part of an on-site/off-site solution, which could generate notable s106 funds to achieve significant, meaningful and long-term planted and ecological areas. Ecological outcomes rather than an unconditional focus on native species should be considered in new planting.