Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Yes, strongly agree

Yes, Strongly agree. Delivering the Governments standard methodology will only deliver an additional 4,500 new homes to 2040. This does not generate sufficient flexibility to start to make significant changes to the overall sustainability of the area, particularly as the North East Cambridge site will come on stream and meet this growth target. Depending on whether the Cambridge Airport reserve site can be shown to be available and achievable, this could also absorb any surplus growth and stifle development elsewhere to 2040. The lower target does not reflect the transformational growth envisaged within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc. Building on the jobs growth and economic advantages that the Greater Cambridge area has experienced should be a priority. Uplifting the housing need to 66,700 over the plan period would create the necessary margins to create new communities away from the city edge. Delivering 30,300 additional homes above existing planned and committed supply will enable the Council to deliver on the identified objectives of climate change, greener environments and greater connectivity for its residents.

The opportunities identified through the nationally led schemes (East-West Rail) and the new transport connections from the A428 dualling need to be recognised. The key concerns raised in the earlier workshops around having infrastructure available alongside development are noted and focusing development along known infrastructure commitments will address these concerns. The February 2020 project update by Highways England commits the 10-mile A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet road dualling scheme to commence in 2022 and be operational by 2025/2026. The certainty that the road scheme can be relied upon during the early part of the plan period should allow major decisions to be made on locating development in this road corridor. The reduction in vehicles on the original route (anticipated as 4,000 reduction) offers opportunities for it to be a successful cycling and public transport corridor, particularly targeting the CAM scheme being planned by the Greater Cambridge Partnership. Coupled with the recent East-West rail announcement that Cambourne is the chosen preferred location for a new rail station will have a transformational impact on the sustainability of this corridor and its credentials for absorbing new development will be significantly improved. These combined schemes should influence the pattern of development to the western corridor.

• Locating new development along public transport corridors and identified routes for the CAM • Integrated approach to development including new homes, access to open space, walking and cycling routes, local facilities

Nothing chosen

The release of some areas of non-performing or underperforming Green Belt around the smaller Green Belt settlements could be considered for non-strategic development through a full Green Belt Review to sustain existing Green Belt settlements. However, the release of Cambridge Airport from the Green Belt though the 2018 Local Plan provides a significant SUE opportunity at the edge of the city to deliver sustainable strategic -scale development as and when it becomes available for release. The location of other strategic-scale sites within the Green Belt should only be considered after all non-Green Belt alternatives have been ‘fully explored’. It is our view that there are other non-Green Belt opportunities to consider that would positively alter the spatial strategy to 2040 to take advantage of the committed and planned infrastructure projects beyond the city edge and their likely effects on improved accessibility, connectivity and relative sustainability for settlements to the western part of the plan area, such as at Croxton. It is necessary to recognise a ‘tipping point’ for the City whereby further housing growth becomes unsustainable. The challenge is to recognise the existing and planned commitments through the 2018 Local Plan that will continue to deliver through the Greater Cambridge Local Plan period and the reality that too much growth focused in one location might have adverse impacts. It cannot be assumed that locations within the Green Belt are inherently more sustainable based solely on their proximity to Cambridge City thereby reducing travel distances. This is an out-dated approach. For example, the 142km CAM system could have multiple stops provided along the route which will change the relative sustainability of non-Green Belt locations. East-West Rail will also influence travel patterns and the sustainability credentials of the rural area to the west of the City. Both have the ability to alter travel patterns and create a shift away from the private car, in spite of travel distances. The spatial strategy should focus on maintaining the pace of delivery on identified city sites during the plan period. The new plan should not commit the same proportion of the new housing supply as the 2018 Local Plans given the significant commitment that is still to be delivered from North East Cambridge and Cambridge Airport and the importance of ensuring a balanced growth strategy to make sure other areas are supported and can also thrive.

Densification can have a role to play in historic cities where there are non-conforming land uses, areas that would benefit from regeneration or inefficient uses of land where densities can be increased without creating poor quality environments. However, this should not be at the expense of health and well-being, ensuring access to green and open spaces that may otherwise exacerbate issues in a negative way. It goes against garden city principles that are shown to have beneficial impact on residents and local communities. Cambridge city and its villages have evolved and there may be very few windfall opportunities left where suitable land remains undeveloped and not already accounted for in existing Local Plans, as evidenced through the site assessments that informed the 2018 Local Plan. We do not consider this to be a reliable source of land supply to meet identified development needs to 2040.

The Issues and Options consultation highlights the fact that the only qualifying site is Cambridge Airport. The fact that it has already been removed from the Green Belt and is safeguarded for future development should be given due consideration. Realistic timescales for any relocation and redevelopment have to be understood and demonstrated to be achievable before this option can be considered further.

The Local Plan 2018 already included a strategic green belt release to develop a large-scale urban extension as and when the airport relocates. Going forward, further large-scale releases of Green belt land should only be considered only when other options have been exhausted, as required by NPPF 2019, para 137. This would include considering sustainable new communities beyond the Green Belt, which includes giving due consideration to our Client’s proposal to develop a new garden village at Croxton. The NPPF also guides that discussions should be held with neighbouring authorities to establish if there are non-greenbelt locations to accommodate some of the identified need within adjoining districts. The new garden village opportunity presented at Croxton could be extended into Huntingdonshire district, where land is available and achievable, to create a larger new settlement. This option should also be fully explored before committing to any significant Green Belt releases. There may be some small pockets of Green Belt land that are capable of being removed without creating urban sprawl or coalescence of settlements to sustain particular villages if required but we do not expect this option to deliver significant levels of new housing. It is disappointing that this spatial option does not state similar challenges identified as other options – including loss of agricultural land and impacts upon the landscape. These are different tests to Green Belt principles and should also be noted here, for consistency.

As guided by NPPF 2019, this option should be explored fully to establish what opportunities exist that can deliver a sustainable pattern of growth without significant Green Belt release. The stated advantages and challenges are equally applicable to the ‘edge of city Green Belt release’ option; village expansion and development along transport corridors and are not specific to this spatial option. There are clear opportunities to consider new garden settlements within the plan period (and beyond). This renaissance in Ebenezer Howard’s ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ planning philosophy which gave rise to the Garden City Movement provides a platform to capture the big themes through Garden Settlement principles for new development. The revival of these principles was set out in the 2012 NPPF, which at Paragraph 52 stated that: “The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities.” In February 2015, Lord Matthew Taylor, who advises the Government and has advised a number of successive UK Governments on planning policy, published ‘Garden Villages: Empowering Localism to Solve the Housing Crisis’ via the Policy Exchange. This Report sets out “many small new ‘garden communities’ are needed (as well as some larger ones) if we are to scratch the surface of the housing problem in a locally responsive way reflecting the principles of localism.” He went on to state that “a single new garden village in each rural English local authority would create around a million extra homes – the homes we need, with the space and gardens, infrastructure, services and employment that people want, all without destroying the places we know and love.” - Lord Taylor In response, the Government published a policy paper in 2016 titled ‘Locally led garden villages, towns and cities’. This sets out how the Government, Local Planning Authorities and communities can support local areas who want to create new garden villages, towns and cities. It offers tailored government support to local areas with ambitious and innovative proposals to deliver 1,500 homes and above. Specifically, it highlights that “…new settlements have a key role to play, not only in meeting this country’s housing needs in the short-term, but also in providing a stable pipeline of housing well into the future.” “The garden village must be a new discrete settlement, and not an extension of an existing town or village. This does not exclude proposals where there are already a few existing homes”. This shift in government policy continues within NPPF 2019, paragraph 72 which directs strategicpolicy makers to consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in an areas infrastructure when considering new development locations. Limb b goes on to state that “ensure that their 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”. There are clear opportunities to explore new garden villages in the Greater Cambridge Plan. For example, our clients land at Croxton could meet the guiding principles. The location benefits from good access to St Neots and Cambourne in the early phases with clear opportunities to have direct access into Cambridge (via the CAM) and beyond to Milton Keynes through the future East-West rail connections. It can be scaled to have a level of self-containment commensurate with a smaller garden village of circa 1500 homes for this plan period with opportunities to expand into a larger community as required in the future. It has a varied landscape character comprising wooded areas and open fields providing a strong baseline against which to develop garden village principles. This proposal has garnered support from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. In a letter dated 22 March 2019, the Mayor wrote offered support for this proposition, stating that “A new settlement at this location has the potential to address elements of regional growth requirements highlighted in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Area Review (CPIER)”. A copy of the letter is attached to this submission. It is not always the case that the creation of a new settlement takes longer to become a reality. Much depends upon the quality of the existing infrastructure which it will connect to and the overall scale of the new community; land ownerships; level of constraints amongst other matters. This spatial option should not be considered in isolation. The location of any new settlement should be informed by its ability to deliver on other policy aspects (safeguarding of Green Belt Land; accessibility and connectivity to other main centres; landscape character; ecological enhancement; health and wellbeing; flood risk; access to the countryside etc). When combined with encouraging development along transport corridors (existing and planned), the site at Croxton has the potential to deliver on all four identified themes of Climate Change / Biodiversity and Green Spaces / Wellbeing and Social Inclusion / Great Places.

Some growth at villages can help sustain existing communities. The take-up of neighbourhood planning has been poor with only one made Neighbourhood Plan within South Cambridgeshire at the time of writing. As a result, this planning tool has not been as successful in delivering localised non-strategic growth to date. With only 18 other designated NP areas and little progress on each, there can be little or no reliance upon NP’s as a source of housing land supply during the plan period. Many villages have been identified by planning inspectors on appeal as being sustainable locations for proportionate growth. Para 31 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plans consider relevant market signals. There is a known affordability issue within rural South Cambridgeshire area and the plan must look to positively address this issue. Local Housing Need is derived across the whole area, and the villages also need a sufficient mix of market and affordable homes to ‘support vibrant rural communities.’ We consider there should be a more proactive and positive plan that provides more clarity for local communities and meets the development needs of villages in a sustainable manner. This is considered to be more in keeping with the thrust of the NPPF to boost the supply of housing and maintain a rolling 5-year supply of suitable housing sites throughout the lifetime of the plan. We consider that a balanced portfolio of housing sites in terms of geography, quantum and tenure is essential to the success of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. To deliver the economic growthscenario, there is a need to utilise different approaches of delivery, such as proportionate extensions to sustainable villages as well as the creation of new settlements. It is recognised that the contributions additional housing can make are unlikely to impact upon improving services and facilities unless significant growth is planned. We do consider there is an option to deliver a new community alongside a smaller village where it will benefit from nationally led and localised infrastructure plans. Croxton is a good example of a small hamlet that has no facilities but is ideally located along a key transport corridor and could be well-connected to larger service centres through future infrastructure projects. Additional housing that includes new facilities can be provided on land between the existing and new A428 routes and could provide a unique opportunity to create a new settlement that does not directly conflict with the existing character and can deliver sustainable growth in the rural area.

This principle should be prioritised if there is to be a step change in delivering sustainable growth with net zero carbon by 2050. This option is entirely capable of being achieved alongside a mix of other options, including new settlements beyond the Green Belt and potential dispersal to the rural areas to rebalance the housing markets within South Cambridgeshire administrative area.