Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Somewhat flexible

No answer given

Highly flexible

It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. Although sites were allocated within and on the edge of some villages in the Site Specific Allocations DPD in 2010 and for the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, it is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities, as would policies protecting existing employment sites. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages to accommodate additional development; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the current site size threshold limits in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 are largely irrelevant and ineffective as there are few outstanding development opportunities within the boundary of many of South Cambridgeshire’s villages. In any event, there are numerous examples between 2014 and 2019 when planning applications were approved and appeals were allowed on sites within and on the edge of settlements that were contrary to the existing site size threshold limits. Therefore, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages, in conjunction with a general policy that supports development within existing framework boundaries but without specifying any size limits. This suggested approach would ensure that sufficient land is allocated for development at villages to support services and facilities and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and would provide some flexibility about development within village boundaries so that the form and scale of development reflects site specific characteristics.

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

It is considered that in reality the development strategy for emerging GCLP will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options. However, it is noted that there are limited opportunities for development within the urban area of Cambridge. There are limited opportunities for development on the edge of Cambridge which are not in the Green Belt, and those opportunities require the relocation of existing uses. New settlements are complex and take a long time to deliver, and typically do not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The options of focusing development around the edge of Cambridge and on the edges of existing villages are preferred. This would provide the best mixture of site sizes in sustainable locations. Any allocations would also be quick to deliver. Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner has promoted a number of sites that would meet these growth objectives around the southern and eastern fringes of Cambridge, and on the edges of existing villages.

Densification should be an important part of the toolkit for meeting housing need. However, this should not be driven at the expense of the character of Greater Cambridgeshire’s settlements. As noted above, there are few opportunities remaining for brownfield development within villages; any sites that do come forward within villages or within Cambridge are likely to face numerous constraints, particularly heritage and impact on the amenity of surrounding properties, which may limit their potential for densification. Whilst densification should therefore be supported on a site-by-site basis, this would not be sufficient to accommodate the significant growth requirements of Greater Cambridge.

This option seems to rely solely on the release of Cambridge Airport by Marshalls, which is the only non-Green Belt site of any significant size. Whilst the site is logical for development should it become available, no relocation plans or timescales have yet been made public, and it would not be prudent to rely solely on this option. Other non-Green Belt sites similarly would rely on the relocation of existing uses, which is not always appropriate or realistic, and can be complicated by ownership issues and contamination. Cambridgeshire County Council has promoted the redevelopment of the Trumpington Park and Ride site, which is in single ownership and available for redevelopment, should an alternative site for this facility be found. However, whilst it is a developed site, it is currently allocated as Green Belt.

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 and the need to support economic growth. 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. 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. The sites that Cambridgeshire County Council have promoted include a number of sites around the Biomedical Campus, adjacent to Babraham Park and Ride, the Trumpington Park and Ride site, and along Newmarket Road, all of which are well-served by existing public transport routes. These links are set to further strengthen: the Biomedical Campus sites are close to the proposed Cambridge South station and CAM route; the Newmarket Road sites align with the proposed eastern CAM route. Their allocation would also allow for the expansion of areas of strong economic activity, supporting further agglomeration effects. The Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership has consulted on the relocation of the Trumpington Park and Ride site and it is understood that plans for the relocation are emerging. The County Council has been liaising with GCP and are aware of the plans. Accordingly, allocation of carefully selected sites on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt would allow for a sustainable pattern of development and support the economic growth of key economic sectors, in line with NPPF policy.

Previous local plan policies have created a number of new settlements at Northstowe, Cambourne, Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield. It is evident from this experience that new settlements are costly and take a significant amount of time to deliver (often at timescales that are slower than anticipated and therefore with the potential to jeopardise forecast housing land supply). The success of the existing allocated new settlements depends on their continued support and their potential further growth beyond the existing allocated areas. Cambridgeshire County Council has promoted sites at Waterbeach and Northstowe which could allow for the continued growth of these settlements. Allocating larger urban extensions of existing communities would allow for the sustainable growth of settlements that already have amenities, employment sites and transport links. Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner has promoted large sites at Shepreth, Sawston and Whittlesford Parkway, where development of large sites can provide new facilities, support existing services (particularly village High Streets) and would capitalise on existing sustainable transport links to Cambridge and other rural employment sites.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. 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. Paragraph 68 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. 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, and that such sites tend to be available in and located within villages in South Cambridgeshire. 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. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner has promoted such sites at a number of villages, including Bassingbourn, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden, Foxton, Landbeach, Sawston and Shepreth.

This would appear to be an appropriate response to the growing congestion in South Cambridgeshire and would be supported by national planning policy. Existing constraints, particularly the Green Belt, should be carefully reviewed to ensure that growth can occur in sustainable locations, on sites which do not contribute to Green Belt purposes. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. The proposed Oxford to Cambridge rail and road links, and the potential CAM corridors, remain uncertain in their timing, funding and proposed routes. Growth along existing transport corridors should therefore be prioritised. The County Council as landowner has promoted sites at the Biomedical Campus, Newmarket Road, Babraham Park and Ride, Sawston, Shepreth and Whittlesford Parkway which could take advantage of existing rail and rapid bus links.