Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Agree

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

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. Cottenham); • Locating development close to existing and proposed transport corridors; • Locating new residential developments of any scale close to existing and proposed employment areas (e.g. Cottenham); and • Encouraging new tree planting 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.

Nothing chosen

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 must be assessed. 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. This particularly applies to new employment space and the current requirements of Policy CC3 should not be raised further. Low carbon energy generation should be encouraged but should not be mandatory. In particular, employment 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. In addition, employment sites that include a residential element and vice versa should be prioritised. 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. Low carbon energy generation should be encouraged but should not be mandatory. In particular, employment schemes that include low carbon and renewable energy elements such as solar power and heating systems and electric car charging points should be looked on more favourably.

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. 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 release.

Yes, somewhat agree

Yes. This could be at both individual site development level and on a more strategic basis i.e. creation of major new woodlands. Potentially, biodiversity net gain can be achieved for smaller developments through financial contributions to such wider objectives.

There are numerous matters relevant here which are all reflected in the adopted local plans: • Inclusion of affordable housing; • Include low cost starter homes in new larger developments; • Proximity of housing to nearby employment (and vice versa); • Proximity of housing to non-car means of transport; • New tree planting or biodiversity enhancements in all developments; • Quality of place-making; • Car-sharing and communal transport arrangements; • Staggered operating hours to reduce peak hour traffic/travel impacts; • Enhanced public transport generally; • Technology to allow home and flexible working; and • Large developments to include new allotments, community woodlands/orchards, wetland creation etc.

All types. There has been a tendency for older and smaller industrial and related concerns to be redeveloped for either housing or for office/hi-tech type uses. Those, sometimes quasi-industrial uses are still needed, and they are needed within the city otherwise there are further adverse transport impacts. Examples include car repair garages and sales, builders’ yards, driving schools, undertakers, laundries, petrol stations, and open storage uses. All such uses employ people locally but also provide important local services. The growth of on-line retailing inevitably results in the demand for more warehousing space which needs to be accommodated somewhere on appropriately located accessible sites. There is possibly a case for ‘transfer-type’ warehousing outside of Cambridge where goods are switched to smaller vehicles for delivery into the City and HGV delivery lorries are suppressed or their operating hours controlled. Finally, there are a number of growing small businesses in the high-tech sector in the Plan area. Many of these do not wish to be located on large scale business or research parks and indeed may not be overly suitable for such parks, which tend to be office/lab dominated. Therefore, there is a need for a greater level of high tech manufacturing/production space in suitable locations. This sector is generally best located out of Cambridge itself and so there should be allocations for new employment land in key villages where there are some local services and existing/planned housing growth.

We would suggest that a joint economic development assessment is required analysing the current employment pattern and the existing skills profile of the area. There is a risk that the local plan focusses on the high tech (IT, life sciences etc) sector which requires B1 space (offices/labs). Due regard needs to be given to a full range of employment types particularly advanced engineering or high-end manufacturing. See also our response to Question 25.

The relationship between homes and jobs has the most influence over travel patterns. Therefore, far more attention should be paid to locating more jobs in the rural area so as to reduce travel to Cambridge. We suggest that new employment allocations should be made in all key settlements in the rural areas so as to disperse more jobs away from Cambridge. Those settlements should be key rural centres where there are: • A certain level of existing or planned housing growth; • A good range of services and facilities; • An existing employment base, which can be built upon; and • Settlements within reasonable proximity of Cambridge – because of the market for land and premises (i.e. viability). We suggest that settlements such as Cottenham, Melbourne and Sawston, for example, would be appropriate locations for such allocations. This would be in line with the ‘Dispersal: Villages’ option presented under Q42.