Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

5.7 New settlements have an important role to play in achieving ‘good growth’ for the Greater Cambridge area. This is advocated in national planning policy, with paragraph 72 of the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stating that: “the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.” 5.8 It states that strategic policy-making authorities should identify suitable locations by considering the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure, the area’s economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains. 5.9 New settlements also offer the opportunity to comprehensively plan a new community achieving excellence in sustainable development and healthier living. New settlements can also provide new infrastructure, employment and services, a variety of homes to meet the needs of different groups in the community, and a greater scope to deliver a significant network of green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain on site. 5.10 In particular, smaller scale new settlements (circa 1000-2000 new homes) which can take advantage of and build upon existing sustainable transport infrastructure represent a sustainable growth option. 5.11 Some of these benefits are reflected in the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal December 2019 prepared by LUC on behalf of the Councils’. For example, it correctly acknowledges that Option 4 (Dispersal – New Settlements) provides “an opportunity for significant new infrastructure to be delivered, such as schools, health facilities, local centres and green spaces”. 5.12 Although, wrongly assumes that all new settlements mean “starting from scratch. The creation of new settlements would also likely require supporting transport infrastructure that connected it to Cambridge, which would require large-scale investment and time to implement” (paragraph 3.39). 5.13 Station Fields is on a key transport corridor and benefits from existing infrastructure due to its proximity to Foxton Rail Station, the A10 and the Melbourn Greenway. 5.14 Station Fields is appropriate in size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns to which there is good access. 5.15 The scale of development of new villages also offers the opportunity to create a cluster of villages and bring benefits for the existing community and make a significant contribution to the long term development needs of the Cambridge area.

5.16 Axis support the principle of siting new development along transport corridors, which encourages development to be focused on locations which limit the need to travel by private car and thus offer a genuine public transport alternative. Growth along these corridors will also support the expansion of economic benefits outwards from Cambridge. 5.17 Opportunities to locate new development along transport corridors on land outside of the Green Belt should be fully explored and assessed by the Councils in developing the spatial strategy for the new Local Plan. 5.18 New villages within or near to these transport corridors would direct growth to sustainable locations and create a sufficient scale of development to incorporate new community infrastructure with long lasting benefits for new and existing residents. 5.19 Station Fields is strategically located to take advantage of a key transport corridor, with existing and committed infrastructure to promote rail travel, walking and cycling into Cambridge and other destinations (Melbourn Greenway and Rural Transport Hub). 5.20 Station Fields is located along the route of the proposed Melbourn Greenway. This will offer new and existing residents the opportunity to cycle and walk into Cambridge and the surrounding villages and provide an attractive alternative to private car use. The proposals at Station Fields could facilitate an extension of the route to link up with new homes, jobs and community facilities and also offer an alternative to the carriageway route for less experienced cyclists. 5.21 In addition, the new Local Plan should consider the greater opportunities and benefits available for creating a Rural Travel Hub, which offers more than just surface car parking. Axis are open to working with the GCP to deliver a better solution for both users and the existing local communities.

Sustainability Appraisal 6.1 In reviewing the documentation prepared by the Council we recognise that this is an early stage in the plan’s preparation and that an SA is an iterative process. At the outset we would note that recent challenges at examination of local plans have included substantive criticisms of the SA which goes well beyond the legal tests and into professional planning judgement. For example, examiners in the North Uttlesford Local Plan, North Essex Local Plan and St Albans Local Plan have recently requested information on alternatives that goes beyond the legal position of “reasonable alternatives” selected by the local authority using broad questions of judgement. 6.2 The Issues and Options Report is assessed in a SA report dated November 2019. The Issues and Options Report is largely of general content without spatial or specific focus, and consequently much of the assessment is general commentary. 6.3 Six spatially discernible options are provided in the "Towards a Spatial Plan" Section, which are: ● Option 1: Densification. ● Option 2: Edge of Cambridge – Outside the Green Belt. ● Option 3: Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt. ● Option 4: Dispersal – new settlements. ● Option 5: Dispersal – villages. ● Option 6: Public transport corridors. 6.4 With only high-level options assessed at this stage, there is substantial uncertainty over the outcomes of these options. As such, the conclusions of the SA also are substantially uncertain, and more assessment is required with specific details provided on the deliverable projects which will make up these options. 6.5 There is a possibility that a preferred option will be advanced with an equally valid alternative discarded at this early stage due to lack of information. Additional assessment should take place at another local plan stage, with full assessments within the SA Framework, before any options are fully dismissed. Without a full consideration of all these options which considers substantive detail of deliverable sites, there is a risk of the plan's selected alternative not being properly justified, and the plan being found unsound at examination. 6.6 The options assessed in the issues and options report will likely only be achievable in combination with other options (e.g. some density within existing development, with some expansion to villages, etc). For transparency, the extent to which these options are likely to be combined in ultimate implementation should be made explicit in any future local plan documents which discuss these strategic options. 6.7 None of the options put forward in the Issues and Options Report are reasonable alternatives capable of meeting the objectives of the plan, as none of them is shown to be capable of meeting housing need and economic potential on their own. As none of the options are reasonable in Page 29 current form, they will need to be re-assessed at a subsequent stage when sufficient detail is available to robustly evidence the selection of a preferred option. 6.8 The significant negative or positive effects given within the SA report are at this stage based on the limited information available misleading due to assumptions used and uncertainty attendant with such high level options. The SA Report notes a large number of points of uncertainty, but still identifies a number of significant effects (both positive and negative). However, there are assumptions for the significant effects identified which aren't clearly explained and which can be questioned. For example, Option 5 (Dispersal – villages) is attributed a significant negative effect to SA Objective 6 (distinctiveness of landscapes) as it is assumed that expansion of these villages could have an adverse effect on the open countryside and landscape surrounding these villages, as well as village character. As recognised in paragraph 3.61 the actual effect will depend on the final design, scale and layout of the proposed development. 6.9 We recognise that SA is an iterative process which will evolve as a Local Plan progresses. More information should be provided on the approach to considering alternatives. The most substantive point we raise that this point is that the options set out in the Issues and Options Report should all be taken forward to subsequent local plan stages, where deliverable options should be assessed in detail, and transparent and objective assessment of these options provided at a subsequent SA stage. This will help ensure the Local Plan process and SA would support a hybrid of development scenarios which would underpin all development proposals at this stage

No uploaded files for public display

Response to Question 2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The sites at land east of Hinton Way and land west of Haverhill Road in Stapleford were promoted to the call for sites process in March 2019 on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships. The representations to the Issues & Options consultation document, which we have submitted by email and online, will refer to those promoted sites where relevant. These representations are accompanied by an Exhibition Boards document (attached with this email), which was produced as part of our ongoing public consultation process. The Exhibition Boards provide a succinct summary of our proposals and include our indicative plans for the site. The relevant pages of the Exhibition Boards document are signposted in our representations where relevant.

No uploaded files for public display

Land north of Haverhill Road, Stapleford CB22 5BX

3.9

Site 51758 map

No choices made

Response to Question 42 5.1 Axis recognise that no single growth option will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary. Although, any hybrid approach should have a primary focus on accessibility to public transport, employment and other daily needs. 5.2 There is an opportunity to create new villages within or near key transport corridors, with sufficient scale to incorporate new community infrastructure with long lasting benefits for new and existing residents. 5.3 Station Fields is uniquely located within a cluster of existing villages. The Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy (2019) recognises the need to ensure that villages remain vibrant and sustainable, with homes built close to places of work, with good transport links and access to services and facilities. This aligns with the NPPF which states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.

No choices made

The four big themes are all considered to be important aspects to achieving positive development. All four themes should be used to inform the spatial strategy within the Local Plan in terms of distributing growth and determining planning applications to deliver growth. It is therefore not considered necessary to rank the options in order of preference.

No choices made

Response to Question 7 5.3 The four big themes are all considered to be important aspects to achieving positive development. All four themes should be used to inform the spatial strategy within the Local Plan in terms of distributing growth and determining planning applications to deliver growth. It is therefore not considered necessary to rank the options in order of preference.