Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

6.7 Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, older people, students, renters and self-builders. 6.8 There should be flexibility within the Local Plan to respond to changing housing needs over the Local Plan period. Consideration of individual site circumstances and the circumstances of a local area should be taken into account to determine the appropriate type of housing for development sites. Separate housing needs assessments should be used to inform the appropriate size, type and tenure of housing needed for different sections of the community, as set out within the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023. Flexibility will be key to a successful Local Plan; through market and affordable housing.

6.9 Local Plan policies can require a high standard of design for new residential development, leading from Government policy and guidance. Appropriately worded design policies should require a high-quality design for new dwellings. This could include sustainable design principles including measures to improve the energy efficiency of new homes, water saving measures, use of efficient insultation material and heating systems, the reduction and recycling of construction materials, provision of appropriate amenity space and accessibility. Policy should not be prescriptive for precisely how it will be accomplished, it can set a policy-level, but developers should be able to use a host of options to achieve the target.

7.1 The NPPF states that “Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health.” 7.2 The NPPF also advocates the advantages of planning new settlements by: “Considering opportunities provided by existing or planned transport improvements (such as public transport stops) when determining where future development should take place”, “Assessing how potential development sites could provide new opportunities for transport infrastructure improvements” and “By locating new homes and jobs which have easy access to reliable sustainable transport modes.” 7.3 The Local Plan needs to ensure developments create an environment where accessibility to day to day services and other facilities is easy and a choice of transport modes is available. This will enable the local community to choose the more socially inclusive and sustainable methods of travel. New developments need to be designed so that this can happen from first occupation when habits start to form.

Yes

7.4 Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge 7.5 Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. 7.6 Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. 7.7 Paragraph 141 seeks the beneficial use of Green Belt land including to provide access, for outdoor sport and recreation, and to retain and enhance landscapes and biodiversity. It is considered that open space, strategic landscaping and ecological enhancements are examples that would represent a beneficial use of Green Belt.

Highly flexible

8.1 The most effective approach to delivering the levels of development required is to ensure a wide variety of sites are allocated both in terms of size and location. This will ensure the consistent delivery across the plan period by not concentrating all development in a specific area or resulting in an over reliance on large strategic sites. 8.2 While a range of development scenarios are outlined the Council should not rely on one strategy, a combination is required to ensure a sound plan. This should allow appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages, in particular, if development meets a particular local business or community need as set out within Para. 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under Para. 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.

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

8.3 It is recognised that no single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary to establish the appropriate locations of new housing and employment development in the district. A hybrid approach will be required but should be underpinned by a focus on accessibility to public transport, employment and other daily needs. 8.4 It is considered that a dispersal to villages should form part of a hybrid spatial strategy. Development within villages is essential to support a prosperous rural economy. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF (2019) notes that: Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.

8.5 Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported. 8.6 As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing, affordable housing and housing for older people in Greater Cambridge. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt around Cambridge is a realistic option. 8.7 Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. 8.8 Paragraph 68 of the NPPF acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge.

9.1 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. 9.2 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. 9.3 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. 9.4 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. 9.5 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. 9.6 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. 9.7 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 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. 9.8 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. 9.9 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.

Response to Question 2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3.1 The Site was submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation in 2019 and Axis are continuing to promote the Site for allocation in the Local Plan. This submission comprises additional information clearly demonstrating the Site’s suitability and deliverability for residential development early in the plan period. 3.2 The Site is not in the Green Belt, it is on the edge of the settlement and currently lies outside of the existing development framework. A residential allocation is sought through the emerging new Local Plan. The Site offers the potential to create a high quality and sustainable residential development for Swavesey though the provision of approximately 70 market and affordable new homes. Axis is seeking to develop approximately 3.3ha of land. 3.3 Our accompanying Vision Document provides detail on the key principles for our proposed development. The approach has been to retain and enhance existing natural features including woodland, the pond and watercourse for the benefit of flora and fauna. The retention of trees and hedgerows provides mature planting with aesthetic value that helps to mitigate the visual impact of the development. 3.4 Unique to this Site is the opportunity for the existing landscape features to create new public open space and consolidate the character of the proposed development. New houses will front into the new public open space created for the new and existing community. 3.5 Rural gaps and views identified in the Swavesey Village Design Guide can be retained and enhanced. In doing so, these connections with the open countryside will help to maintain the rural character of the village. 3.6 The Site also offers the opportunity to provide a landscape corridor connecting landscape assets. These landscape corridors provide conduits for local wildlife and safe and attractive routes for pedestrians and cyclists. The landscape corridors connect the existing pond and woodland to the wider landscape and provide an attractive outlook for new homes, in doing so, addressing one of the priorities for Swavesey Village Design Guide 3.7 The Site has the ability to provide up to 70 new market and affordable homes which will help address the local housing need with a range of housing types. 3.8 The principles can be summarised as follows: ● Achieve 35 dph which equates to approximately 70 new dwellings (Inc. affordable housing); ● Retain and enhance existing natural features including woodland, the pond and watercourse for the benefit of flora and fauna; ● Retention of trees and hedgerows provides mature planting with aesthetic value that helps to mitigate the visual impact of future development; ● Creation of homes that are in keeping with the historic architectural character of Swavesey; ● Rural gaps and views identified to be retained and enhanced providing connections with the open countryside helping to maintain the rural character of the village (key requirement of the Swavesey Village Design Guide); and, ● Provision of green infrastructure to encourage ecological corridors and increase bio-diversity. Benefits to be delivered by the proposals 3.9 The Site has the potential to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the three dimensions of sustainable development identified at paragraph 7 of the NPPF, whilst also securing a number of benefits to both Swavesey and the wider Greater Cambridge area, including the following: Economic Benefits ● New jobs will be created through the construction phase of the development, both directly and through supply chains; ● New residents will help to sustain existing shops, services and facilities within Swavesey due to higher footfall and patronage once the development is occupied, reinforcing the role of Swavesey as ‘District Centres’; ● Unlike a series of smaller scale developments, a Site of this size is likely to generate Section 106 contributions towards improving local infrastructure; ● Additional revenue will be generated through the New Homes Bonus. Social Benefits ● The potential to deliver approximately 70 market and affordable new homes to assist Greater Cambridge in meeting their objectively assessed housing needs; ● The potential to deliver a range of dwelling size, type and tenure to meet locally identified housing need and creating a mixed and sustainable community; ● The Site is well connected in terms of public transport, with direct access to a range of locations and their associated services and facilities; ● There is potential to create a high quality accessible open space. The provision of such a large area of open space is unlikely to be feasible on smaller scale or constrained brownfield sites; ● There is potential to deliver play facilities on the Site to meet an identified local need. Again, the provision of play facilities is unlikely to be feasible on smaller scale or constrained brownfield sites.; Environmental Benefits ● The Site is well located to promote pedestrian, cycle and public transport trips, thus reducing carbon emissions; ● A sensitive design approach can be achieved which ensures that development will not encroach into areas at risk from flooding; ● The majority of the existing tree and hedgerow planting around the periphery of the Site and along the internal field boundary can be retained; ● Significant additional tree planting can be incorporated throughout the Site. This will also contribute towards biodiversity enhancements. Responding to the four key themes 3.10 The development Site would contribute to the four big themes as follows: ● Climate Change – new dwellings will be designed and constructed in a manner to be energy efficient and incorporate renewable technologies where appropriate. The site will also see an increase in tree planting that would act as a source of carbon capture and reduce the effect of climate change. The Site is also in a sustainable location, providing alternatives to private car use for residents to meet their daily needs; ● Biodiversity and Green Space – through the provision of on-site green infrastructure and retaining and enhancing vegetation this can create an ecological and recreational asset to be enjoyed by future and existing residents; ● Wellbeing and Social Inclusion – the Site would incorporate a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures, to help meet the needs of the District and local community. The proposals would also promote healthy lifestyles and wellbeing through the provision of on-site recreation and the Site’s accessibility to education, shops and public transport by active modes of travel such as walking, cycling or rollerblading; and ● Great Places – a landscape-led approach is central to the design and layout of the scheme, as shown in the Illustrative Masterplan which shows how the Site could come forward. Summary of Technical Assessments 3.11 A series of technical assessments have been prepared to demonstrate the deliverability of the Site, these reports should be read alongside this document. 3.12 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been prepared by BSG Ecology and has informed the Illustrative Masterplan that has been prepared as part of the Vision Document. The report notes that the Site is dominated by grassland which is of a low ecological value and there are no designated sites of wildlife value within its boundary. Ecological value of the Site is limited to the woodland, hedgerow and pond habitats. 3.13 A high-level transport strategy has been prepared by Stantec and is submitted in support of this response. The strategy notes that the Site has good accessibility to key destinations by non-car modes, within footway provision through Swavesey providing non-car access to Swavesey Primary School, Swavesey Village College and a wide range of other local services and facilities that would meet many of the day-to-day needs of local residents. Most of the village is within a one mile walk of the Site, and there is also good non-car connection with the nearby Buckingway Business Park. 3.14 In the wider context, Highways England’s A14 improvement between Milton and Ellington is nearing completion. A new local access road will run parallel between the Swavesey junction at the Buckingway Business Park and Huntingdon Road in Cambridge. This will have a high-quality pedestrian and cycle route alongside it, which would be an extension of the existing shared footway / cycleway along Bucking Way Road, south of Swavesey. This means there would be a continuous shared footway / cycleway between the Site and key destinations including Bar Hill and its Business Park at about 3.4 miles, Eddington at about 7 miles, West Cambridge at about 8 miles and Cambridge City Centre at about 8.5 miles (travelling distances). These are reasonable distances for regular cyclists, therefore providing further opportunities for the development to promote non-car means of travel. 3.15 The Site is close to bus stops in Boxworth End which are served by the Citi 5 service about every 2 hours during weekdays, linking the Site with Bar Hill and Cambridge City Centre. The Site is also about 1.4 miles south of the Swavesey stop for the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus, which provides fast and frequent services to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge City Centre, along with St Ives. The Site therefore has good public transport accessibility with Cambridge City Centre and the key employment location of the Cambridge Northern Fringe. 3.16 It is proposed that the Site be accessed by a new priority T-junction onto Boxworth End. A preliminary design of this access has been prepared in accordance with highways design guidance. 3.17 It is considered that the Site is deliverable, accords with national and local transport policy guidance, and that therefore there are no transport or highways reasons why Land East of Boxworth End, Swavesey should not be allocated for residential development in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. 3.18 A drainage and flood risk assessment has informed the proposal. Drainage features have been designed to not only accommodate the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event but also assessed the impact if no discharge occurs in 14 days. Should the Site be allocated then further discussions and consultation with Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will continue to refine the proposal. Drainage and flooding have been carefully considered and measures to facilitate residential development on the Site. Deliverability 3.19 This Site is considered “deliverable” as defined by the NPPF (Glossary). Specifically, the Site is available now, offers a suitable location for development now, and is achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the Site within five years of adoption of the new Local Plan. 3.20 The Site is located in a sustainable location, whereby future residents would not be reliant on the private car for their daily needs. Swavesey is a sustainable settlement with a range of services and facilities which are within walking and cycling distance of the Site. 3.21 As demonstrated by the supporting technical assessments, there are no ‘show stopping’ matters which would prevent the Site being allocated for development in the new Local Plan.

No uploaded files for public display

Agree

4.1 Agree - The proposed Local Plan period up to 2040 is considered appropriate and to accord with the requirements set out within the NPPF for local authorities to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites between years 1-15 of the plan (Para 67). 4.2 As recognised, Greater Cambridge falls at the crossroads of a number of key economic corridors, including the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, London-Stansted Corridor and the Cambridge-Norwich tech corridor. The Oxford-Cambridge Arc in particular is a key economic priority as recognised by Central Government. Further work on the delivery of these initiatives will take place including the need for cooperation between authorities and stakeholders. 4.3 It is imperative that the New Local Plan has flexibility to allow for additional growth to come forward to meet the needs of these important initiatives as they develop through cross boundary and national discussions, potentially within the early/mid stages of the plan period.