Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Highly flexible

Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. In response to this question, consideration should also be given to the release of Green Belt land immediately adjoining larger settlements.

Highly flexible

Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.

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

The location of new development should be based on a few basic principles: • In areas with access to existing/planned public transport links, including Green Belt locations. • In areas with good provision, or planned provision, of cycleways/pedestrian linkages; • In areas well connected to existing or planned local employment; • On the fringe of Cambridge, including Green Belt locations • (see Q45 below); and • In key villages and new settlements with services and local existing/planned employment. The reality is that the development strategy will almost certainly involve several of the growth choices presented in the Consultation Paper. We are of the view that the overall development strategy should definitely include a clear element of Green Belt release and this should be to a greater extent than the current planning framework, allied to this there is the need for larger allocations to the south of Cambridge to access the significant medical, research and commercial development which has occurred to the south of the City.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

We would support development at suitable villages or locations beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment or significant enhancements to public transport and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. Although, in terms of sustainability and climate change grounds sites closer to Cambridge should be considered.

It is clear that if the growth aspirations of the Local Plan are to be realised Green Belt releases will be needed, particularly those settlements on public transport corridors.

We are unsure at present. It would be best to pause on new settlements until such time as there is further progress with the actual development of Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourne Airfield. It is almost certainly the case that the District Council has learnt many lessons from the planning of these (and Cambourne) and experience is developing all the time. There are obvious issues over the costs of servicing sites for new settlements, the delivery rate of new housing and the design quality achieved. The complexities are appreciated so it is felt better to await more substantial development of these new settlements before planning for more. It would more appropriate to look at completing and expanding existing new settlements rather than embarking on new settlements, particularly those to the north of Cambridge. It is clear that a significant amount of employment and job creation is taking place to the south of Cambridge and that larger allocations need to acknowledge this.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in key villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy for example. The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located close to transport corridors, including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in several key villages is appropriate and we specifically suggest Fulbourn.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. This should be amended to include reference to both cycle and pedestrian links. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are villages and locations to the south of Cambridge which are eminently suitable for further growth, which will be assisted by the proposed public transport corridor.

Yes. With regards to new employment development and settlement heirarchy: Policy E/11 seems flawed in an era of huge increases in on-line retailing and home deliveries which inevitably requires warehousing close to large population centres. The result will be greater HGV/LGV travel distances; and Policy E/14 is highly onerous and we base this on debates with Development Control Officers over specific planning applications. There are too many criteria and tests such that the policy becomes very difficult to satisfy on all counts. It is therefore negative in its approach when it should be encouraging economic development in villages. If brownfield development is to be encouraged then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted. As a consequence of the range of facilities available within Fulbourn and its close proximity to Cambridge, it is contended that Fulbourn should be designated as a Rural Centre as defined by Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan, from its current designation as a Minor Rural Centre (Policy S/9).