Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Response to Question 2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The landowner has submitted a proposed site option for Land off Cambridge Road, Great Shelford at the 2019 Call for Sites stage. However further work has been done on the relative sustainability of the site (attached technical note by TPA). The preferred route of the East West Rail Link has also now been identified, including a potential new rail station at Cambridge South. NPPF 2019, para 72 directs strategic-policy makers to consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in an areas infrastructure when considering suitable locations for new development.

No uploaded files for public display

Nothing chosen

We agree that 2040 is an appropriate date to plan for delivery of housing on the basis that the minimum housing and employment needs are already set out – i.e. minimum 41,000 new homes between 2017 and 2040, potentially increasing up to 66,700 to rebalance new housing against jobs growth. This is on the basis that there will be a full Green Belt Review undertaken to support the spatial strategy options. Whilst we do not anticipate any significant alterations to the Green Belt boundary to 2040 to deliver strategic-scale growth (as further urban extensions to Cambridge City within this period have been recently been considered through the current Local Plan which resulted in the Cambridge Airport site being removed and safeguarded from the Green Belt), a review of sustainable villages in the Green Belt is long overdue. The evidence base for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP) will still need to consider the capacity for additional housing at sustainable Green Belt villages. In the event that this identifies areas of land that are poorly performing in Green Belt terms, and in suitable locations for proportionate growth, these should be removed from the Green Belt and identified for development.

Development Management Policies can be designed to support this commitment, building on the improvements to be gained through the changes to the Building Regulations and introducing other complementary policies for new buildings and their immediate environments. However, to create a step change to the key issue for Greater Cambridgeshire – transport impacts – this has to come from locating development in a different way to the existing local plan strategies that can truly deliver on the objectives of non-car travel whilst helping to improve the sustainability of the existing settlements and urban environments. New development should be prioritised in locations that are able to take advantage of non-motorised travel.

The Issues and Options documents recognises that the Local Plan can be a powerful tool to improve wellbeing and social inclusion through directing what kind of jobs are created, and where; the availability of suitable and affordable housing; access to services; cultural facilities; green spaces; learning opportunities and employment; as well as positively influencing individuals’ health and lifestyle. Locating development on land that can deliver a good living environment in a location that offers easy access to established facilities will engender ‘good growth’. It is also important to recognise that where is an existing Local Housing Need within an existing community, that proportionate development that offers a range of house types, tenures and sizes can itself promote wellbeing by enabling people to stay or return to areas where they have strong local connections.

At this stage, the average annual requirement for Greater Cambridge is to ensure sufficient land is identified to deliver a minimum 1,800 dwellings per annum (using the Governments standard methodology) or 2,900 dwellings per annum to deliver jobs related growth by 2040. To achieve this, it will need a selection of options and choice of sites to sustain the pace of delivery. There should be a spread of delivery over the period to 2040 to ensure the market can support the step change in the level of growth envisaged through the economic growth model. The under-delivery in the GCLP area underscores the importance of providing a range of deliverable sites in a range of sustainable locations across the whole plan area, with villages being a critical location for achieving a successful spatial strategy to 2041 and beyond. Opportunities for growth and investment need to be provided across the unitary area and in locations that provide the greatest potential to unlock economic growth and improve sustainable connectivity. It also avoids over-concentrating growth in locations which already have significant commitments, which could risk delay and stagnation in housing delivery. There is a risk that seeking to allocate too many homes based on similar principles to the 2018 Local Plans could impact upon delivery rates and consequently investment in the area. Housebuilders will only ever be able to maintain a set number of outlets on site at a given point in time. Allocating more housing to a location already benefitting from high amount of commitments is unlikely to have a proportionate impact upon housing delivery for these reasons. The GCLP should recognise that there is a need to ensure a balanced strategy for growth across the area including at established villages in highly sustainable locations. These settlements have a role to play in supporting sustainable economic growth for the GCLP. This is consistent with the PPG. We consider that a balanced portfolio of housing sites in terms of geography, quantum and tenure is essential to the success of the GCLP. To deliver growth, and particularly the higher economic growth-scenario, there is a need to utilise different approaches of delivery in order to meet geographical need and to ensure a consistent stream of housing completions. This includes locations such as Great Shelford. It is not appropriate to assume that Neighbourhood Plans will provide any meaningful additional housing in existing villages to 2040 evidenced by the lack of take up by parishes and local communities unless the GCLP directs a Neighbourhood Plan group to do so. Of the 100+ villages in the GCLP area, only 18 have designated NP areas and only one Neighbourhood Plan has been made at the time of writing. The importance of preparing strategic policies that include a housing requirement for designated Neighbourhood Areas is set out in para 65 of the NPPF as follows “Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period. Within this overall requirement, strategic policies should also set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations”. It goes on to state that “once the strategic policies have been adopted, these figures should not need retesting at the neighbourhood plan examination, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances that affects the requirement”. This guidance would capture some of the sustainable villages which have designated Neighbourhood Areas including Great Shelford (Stapleford and Great Shelford NP area was designated in November 2016) but which progress has been slow. Further development in this location would help to address current affordability challenges. The high house prices and affordability ratio in South Cambridgeshire area suggests that it is particularly difficult for people to access the housing market. Applying this to Great Shelford where the census data shows similar trends leads us to conclude that the settlement would benefit from a future increase to housing supply. An increase in housing stock in Great Shelford would mean that it would be easier for people to access the local housing market and/or remain resident in the local area at the stage in which they require alternative forms of accommodation, such as older persons housing. To achieve this, a housing target and potential green belt releases should be identified within the GCLP.

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.

• Locating new development in settlements that already benefit from a high level of connectivity by non-car modes; along public transport corridors and identified routes for the CAM and East-West Rail hubs. • Integrated approach to development including new homes, access to open space, walking and cycling routes, local facilitie

Nothing chosen

The release of some areas of non-performing or underperforming Green Belt around the more sustainable Green Belt settlements should be considered for non-strategic development through a full Green Belt Review. There are options available, including at Cambridge Road, Great Shelford, where land has been assessed as being capable of development without affecting the Green Belt function. The GCLP is the only tool that can assist local communities that are located in the Green Belt meet their Local Housing Needs and/or take advantage of the Localism Act and help direct Neighbourhood Plans. The strategic policies need to properly reflect the limitations that the Green Belt places upon existing settlements.

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. Specifically, the surrounding necklace 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 densification to be a reliable source of land supply to meet identified development needs to 2040. In order for the larger villages to be sustained and thrive, some natural growth should be allowed to occur on edge sites where there are no opportunities for densification.

The South Cambs Local Plan 2018 includes a strategic green belt release to develop a large-scale urban extension as and when the airport relocates. This was envisaged to meet the city’s expansion requirements during this next plan period to 2040 without requiring significant Green Belt releases. However, there are some small pockets of Green Belt land that are capable of being removed around other Green Belt settlements, including for example at Great Shelford, without creating urban sprawl or coalescence of settlements but that would sustain particular villages that have otherwise been constrained for many years. The GCLP should include a review of existing villages within the Green Belt to establish where there may be capacity to increase housing supply without prejudicing the key GB principles; meet identified needs of Green Belt villages; contribute towards a balanced growth strategy.