Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

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.

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

The location of new development should be based on a few basic principles: • In areas with access to existing/planned public transport links; • 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 (see Q45 below); and • In key villages 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 dispersal to villages and that this should be to a greater extent than the current planning framework.

It is not entirely clear what this question is aimed at. Any land outside of the Green We would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support development at suitable villages beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. That suggests development at those settlements which lie on the edge of the Green Belt (which still benefit in ‘market’ terms from proximity to Cambridge) such as Duxford, Cottenham, and Bar Hill for example.

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. A key issue is the delivery of jobs in such settlements – Cambourne being the prime example. The lack of delivery of jobs inevitably has major travel implications and therefore we believe that it is better to deliver such employment land associated with smaller settlements which already have some service and employment base.

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 focused 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 Cottenham. In this context, village growth should specifically include both homes and employment land. It is noteworthy that in the adopted Local Plan, new settlements and science/research parks aside, only two village employment allocations were made under E/5 – at Papworth and Over. This is a very small level of new employment land for the rural areas over the whole plan period and we believe that sort of approach is counterproductive to reducing travel.

Yes. With regard to new employment development: 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; Policy E/12 – is far too vague and it should be clear what is meant by ‘in keeping with the scale of a village’ and ‘be in character and scale with the location’. A more specific policy would be welcome; and Policy E/13 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. Why is it limited to brownfield land? Why is a named occupier required? Why is a business case required? If village employment is to be encouraged, then a less restrictive policy approach should be adopted.

The aims set out are ambitious and wide-ranging. It is important that the plan is not overly long and complex. Too often, planning policies are over-prescriptive and subsequently lead to protracted debates when a planning application is submitted. The plan should be kept as simple as possible and focus on key priorities. Local Plan policies should not duplicate or repeat the scope of matters better controlled by other legislation e.g. Building Regulations. Viability testing is important. The need for carbon reduction is appreciated but if additional demands are placed on the development industry in respect of climate change, public transport needs or renewable energy generation for example, then there will be additional costs which feed into rents and values – thus potentially exacerbating some of the issues identified for the Plan to address. For local employers, attracting qualified young professionals is becoming more difficult due to house prices. Those skilled employees (professional/educated/trained) would not qualify for social housing and, in any event, aspire to homeownership. There is therefore a case for an element of affordable housing provision to be in the form of low-cost starter homes i.e. discounted purchase.