Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Somewhat flexible

Flexibility should reflect the forthcoming evidence in the SHMA on the size and type of new homes required; a size threshold should not artificially reduce the number of plots at the expense of providing a small number of large properties if the evidence indicates the greatest need is for smaller ones. Village boundaries should also be reviewed to facilitate organic growth in small settlements to allow enough growth to maintain existing services and facilities in light of decreasing average household size.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

Huntingdonshire District Council does not wish to rank where new development should be sited but could not complete their response without doing so. Therefore, please ignore ranking of development options. The siting of new developments should reflect the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of reasonable alternatives in the first instance, this should include ‘in combination’ effects of the six options presented. Emphasis should be placed on co-location of new homes with major economic investment opportunities to assist in delivering the necessary homes to support Greater Cambridge’s ambitious economic aspirations of doubling GVA. It will be essential for Greater Cambridge to liaise carefully with adjoining local authorities through the duty to cooperate to minimise the negative impacts that might arise from substantial housing growth and additional travel demand whichever option or combination of options is adopted. Huntingdonshire District Council will be pleased to work with Greater Cambridge to explore the potential for developments which would support the greater viability of public transport corridors linking into Huntingdonshire.

Development to the east of Cambridge offers opportunities for provision of sustainable development close to employment and services. It offers benefits in terms of minimising carbon dioxide emissions by linking into existing and potentially improved public transport networks.

Land should be removed from the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge if evidence indicates that it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances and helping to reduce climate impacts.

New settlements should be sustainably located in relation to public transport and adequate routes made available for non-motorised users. The impact of new development on any relevant adjoining district and the surrounding transport infrastructure should be carefully examined and any mitigation measures identified and incorporated early on.

Villages should facilitate enough organic growth to maintain existing services and facilities in light of decreasing average household size and provide choice in the housing market.

The amount growth proposed along transport corridors should not detrimentally impact on the aspirations for boosting growth within surrounding market towns through the Combined Authority’s Prospectuses for Growth programme. Siting growth within public transport corridors should consider the cumulative impacts not only of transport demand between the new development and Cambridge but also between the new development and the outer public transport destination of the corridor.