Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Our clients have no specific comments at this stage but, generally, it is a fact that the more consultation that is carried out and the greater detail that is obtained, then the longer the local plan process

Agree

Yes, we support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment and residential locations (existing and proposed) to the list because that has a critical effect on long term travel patterns.

Strongly disagree

No. The net zero carbon theme is an aspirational target for a timeframe well beyond the life of the new local plan. The local plan area faces serious challenges now in terms of new housing, affordable housing and transport impacts for example and so the priority should be to address those immediate issues rather than unduly focusing on such long-term aspirations. The achievement of net zero carbon will be influenced to a far greater degree by national legislation and fiscal measures rather than local plan policy. Secondly, the four themes do not adequately address housing affordability in Cambridgeshire which is a major issue for the population and for employers seeking to recruit new staff in the Cambridge area, particularly in high-tech sectors. In particular the demand for housing to the south and east of Cambridge. Thirdly, there is insufficient presence within the four themes of the importance of job growth as per the Combined Authority vision of doubling economic output over 25 years. If job growth and economic development do not occur – then many of the other aims of the Greater Cambridge Plan will not be achieved. This will also have significant impacts for the demand and delivery of additional housing. Conversely, employers will not be attracted to Cambridge if there insufficient affordable accommodation available.

Wellbeing and Social Inclusion, Biodiversity and Green Spaces, Great Places, Climate Change

There is a limit as to how much a local plan can achieve this aim, rather than legislative or fiscal measures, but we suggest the plan should concentrate on: • Locating development close to Cambridge and in key village settlements e;g Abington and Fulbourn, which already have excellent pedestrian and cycle links to Addenbrookes, Astra Zenica and Cambridge • Locating development close to existing and proposed transport corridors. In the case of Abington Park Farm the site is proposed close to the proposed public transport route and hub. This will allow a modal shift to public transport • Encouraging new tree planting and bio-diversity enhancements in all new developments. The key factor must be the suitability of locations for new development – both housing and employment. It is the interaction between these two elements which results in the majority of transport impacts. Also, the design of new housing and the forms of heating adopted will help to reduce carbon emissions. However, it should also be noted that significant renewable energy facilities are increasingly being submitted via the National Infrastructure Planning process limiting the control that Local Planning Authorities have over such projects

Yes, somewhat agree

The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already contains policy objectives concerning this. There needs to be a recognition that such initiatives will add to the cost of new development (both housing and employment space) and that, ultimately, such initiatives will feed into higher house prices and employment rents/values. That may be deemed acceptable, but its effects do need to be considered so overall development viability is not compromised. It is not possible for the planning authorities to insist on a range of ‘essential’ planning requirements and to now also weigh new development with additional costs associated with climate adaptation and resilience features. There will be a financial impact if policy requires such matters. Low carbon energy generation should be encouraged but should not be mandatory. In particular, residential schemes that include low carbon and renewable energy and elements such as solar power and heating systems and electric car charging points should be looked on more favourably.

On the assumption that there will be enhanced public transport services in the future then more consideration could be given to car-free developments or residential/employment schemes with very low parking standards in suitable locations, such as those immediately adjacent to the proposed public transport corridor at Abington, whereas Fulbourn has good cycle and bus routes to Cambridge. New tree planting should be positively encouraged in all developments and there should be an ambitious plan-wide network of longer distance footpath/cycleways linking key villages to Cambridge and employment areas. Increases in the capacity and frequency of public transport arising from the provision of the public transport will unquestionably assist with this regard. There is also a need to recognise that renewable technologies are rapidly changing and the plan should allow flexibility as to the forms of carbon neutral measures incorporated into developments.

The local plan should continue as per the current situation – protect important natural areas and, where appropriate, encourage the provision of new greenspace associated with large scale development. In particular land adjacent to areas proposed to be released from the Green Belt. The City of Cambridge would benefit from further large-scale greenspace on its periphery i.e. areas large enough to serve the whole population. There may be potential opportunities to achieve major new green infrastructure associated with Green Belt releases and development which is in more elevated locations.

There should be a simple, and proportionate, methodology set out in the local plan to allow demonstration of biodiversity gain associated with new development. For minor development (i.e. less than 10 dwellings for example) a standardised approach could be adopted but a more tailored approach is probably necessary for large developments. The local plan should clearly set out what the desirable biodiversity gains are in general terms. For example, is the priority tree planting, wetland creation or habitat enhancement?

Yes, strongly agree

Yes. This could be at both individual site development level and on a more strategic basis i.e. creation of major new woodlands, this would be particularly beneficial within the Green Belt and on the periphery of elevated locations. Potentially, biodiversity net gain can be achieved for smaller developments through financial contributions to wider objectives.