Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Chapter 16 of the NPPF provides guidance on preserving and enhancing heritage assets. As noted in Figure 17 of the Issues & Options consultation document the Greater Cambridge area has a significant number of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. The adopted Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 contain detailed policies that seek to protect heritage assets. There are adopted appraisals for most of the Conservation Areas in Greater Cambridge and additional heritage supplementary guidance. Therefore, heritage assets are already well protected. It is requested that the emerging GCLP includes similar policies to protected heritage assets that are consistent with national guidance.

The impact on heritage assets is one of a range of matters that will inform decisions about which sites to allocate in emerging GCLP, and it is considered that good design can be used to protect heritage assets from harmful impacts; the promoted development at South West Cambridge is an example where heritage and landscape assets have been assessed and where they are not considered to be a meaningful barrier to new development, adopting sensitive layouts and designs. An Initial Heritage Impact Assessment (prepared by Bidwells) and Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Green Belt Review (prepared by The Landscape Partnership) has been undertaken for the promoted development at the South West Cambridge site. The Masterplan for the promoted site has taken into account the significance and setting of the identified heritage assets and landscape character, in order to ensure that any impacts are mitigated wherever possible. In summary, the promoted development includes a substantial central east-west open corridor through the site which takes into account some of the primary viewpoints towards the City from the west, retains existing landscape features, and locates development to avoid potential adverse effects on the setting of landmark/taller heritage assets in the City. This approach of detailed heritage and landscape assessments followed by careful and sensitive design demonstrates that heritage and landscape assets within and on the edge of Cambridge can be protected in conjunction with a strategic site allocation at South West Cambridge.

The NPPF and PPG provide guidance on design. Paragraph 124 stresses the importance of design in built development. Paragraph 127 identifies some aspirations for the design of new development. Paragraph 006 (Id.26) of the PPG provides further information on design in the planning process. It states: “Design impacts on how people interact with places. Although design is only part of the planning process it can affect a range of economic, social and environmental objectives beyond the requirement for good design in its own right. Planning policies and decisions should seek to ensure the physical environment supports these objectives. The following issues should be considered: • local character (including landscape setting) • safe, connected and efficient streets • a network of greenspaces (including parks) and public places • crime prevention • security measures • access and inclusion • efficient use of natural resources • cohesive & vibrant neighbourhoods” It is suggested that the design policies in the emerging GCLP should closely reflect this national guidance. In addition, there are a number of design tools already in existence in Greater Cambridge e.g. Design and Conservation Panel, Design Enabling Panel and Design Workshops, and it is normal for design codes to be prepared for strategic sites. It is suggested that the existing approach towards assessing design matters for developments should continue.

Very important

Very important. A Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment has been prepared by Iceni Projects Ltd on behalf of North BRLOG and is submitted with these representations. Paragraph 6.3 provides a summary of the local economy and states: “The Greater Cambridge area is at the heart of the UK’s knowledge economy. It is an economy which has been growing rapidly over a sustained period and has further growth potential, focused in particular on some key sectors such as bioscience, digital/ IT and AI. The success and growth potential of the area is underpinned by the concentration of high-tech, knowledge-based businesses; the universities and research institutes based in Cambridge; an unrivalled skills base, with 60% of the workforce having degree level skills; an enterprise culture; and an ability to capture foreign direct investment and venture capital.” The National Infrastructure Commission, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership also acknowledge and support the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area. The Cambridge and Peterborough Devolution Deal commits the authorities in the area to planning to double economic output by 2040. The Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) considered that “the aim of doubling GVA in this area by 2040 is realistic, and will be achieved in part by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses which would not locate elsewhere in the UK. Success here is of national significance. But it will only be attained if there is more ambition with regard to the development of new housing, and a careful prioritisation of infrastructure projects.” (CPIER Final Report, September 2018, Preface) Therefore, Greater Cambridge is experiencing strong economic growth which is expected to continue into the future. The growth potential of the area is acknowledged at a national and regional level. There is already a commitment to substantially increase economic output. Therefore, it will be very important for the emerging GCLP to support economic growth in Greater Cambridge. In turn this will improve the life chances of those residing in the Greater Cambridge Area.

The emerging GCLP will need to be consistent with national guidance on meeting housing needs. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF confirms the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of housing, and to achieve this by ensuring that a sufficient amount and variety of land for housing is identified. Paragraph 60 expects the standard method to be used to determine the minimum number of houses needed. Paragraph 61 expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. Section Id.2a of the Planning Practice Guidance explains how housing and economic needs assessments should be undertaken, including how to calculate local housing needs using the standard method. Paragraph 010 of Id.2a makes it clear that the standard method is the minimum starting point for determining local housing needs and acknowledges that there may be circumstances where actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. As set out in Paragraph 010 the circumstances where increases to housing need that exceed past trends are as follows: • there is a growth strategy in place to promote and facilitate additional growth; • strategic infrastructure improvements are likely to lead to an increase in the number of homes needed locally; and • an authority has agreed to accommodate unmet housing needs from a neighbouring area. As set out below, the first two circumstances are relevant to Greater Cambridge. Paragraph 024 of Id.2a explains how the need for affordable housing is calculated, and it is suggested that the overall housing target should be increased where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes. As set out below, there is an urgent need to improve the affordability of housing and to boost affordable housing delivery in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, the emerging GCLP should use the standard method to calculate the minimum local housing need, and then make appropriate adjustments taking into account the growth strategies and strategic infrastructure improvements identified for Greater Cambridge, and a further adjustment to ensure affordable housing needs are met. Our response to Question 32 sets out the assessment of housing requirements undertaken for North BRLOG.

Yes, strongly agree

Yes. The 2018 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) identified that recent employment growth has been faster than anticipated, and the aim of doubling GVA in the area by 2040 was realistic. The predicted economic growth could be achieved by attracting knowledge-intensive businesses that would not locate elsewhere in the UK, by delivering new housing, and by prioritising infrastructure projects. The economic success of Greater Cambridge is of national significance. These factors support a significantly higher number of homes than would be derived from the use of the standard method. A Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment has been prepared by Iceni Projects Ltd on behalf of North BRLOG and is submitted with these representations. The Report has examined the inter-related issues of economic growth, affordability and housing need in Greater Cambridge. The National Infrastructure Commission, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership acknowledge and support the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area, and consider that there is a need to substantially increase housing delivery in order to support that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. The evidence in the Iceni Assessment identifies a fundamental imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery, which is leading to acute housing affordability issues. It is noted in the Report that median house prices are more than 11 times average earnings across the Greater Cambridge Area (with a higher ratio in Cambridge City). The undersupply of homes presents a fundamental challenge to the area’s future economic growth because workers are being priced out of the area and firms in the Greater Cambridge area finding it increasingly difficult to recruit. It is recommended in the Assessment that planning for housing should be based on a blended economic growth rate of 2.8% per annum i.e. based on short-term economic trends to 2031 and longer-term economic trends thereafter; this recommendation is consistent with the findings of the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER), the Cambridge and Peterborough Devolution Deal, and the Local Industrial Strategy for the area. It is common planning practice to seek to align housing and economic strategies. Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review Iceni’s analysis demonstrates that 101,200 dwellings are required in the Greater Cambridge area between 2017 and 2040, which equates to 4,400 dwellings per annum. It is acknowledged that this level of growth in housing is transformational, but so is the economic growth potential of Greater Cambridge and the scale of planned infrastructure investment.

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. As noted in the response to Questions 16, 18 and 46 the existing planned new settlements (Northstowe and Waterbeach) and other strategic sites (Cambourne West and Wing at Cambridge East) are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing; for example developments on greenfield land on the edge of Cambridge have sufficient residual value to meet affordable housing and other planning obligations. The promoted development at South West Cambridge could provide a mix of house types, sizes and tenures, including housing and affordable housing for key workers (including but not limited to University and College staff) and residential accommodation for the elderly (including care provision). The fact that this site is owned by a consortium of Colleges and the University means that it would be in the landowners’ interests to ensure that housing is provided to meet the needs of their students and research staff, and that those facilities could be managed by those institutions.

As set out in the response to Question 23 above, national guidance on design already exists which should be reflected in design policies in the emerging GCLP. A number of methods are used in Greater Cambridge to ensure the delivery of high standards for housing e.g. Design and Conservation Panel, Design Enabling Panel, and Design Workshops. Therefore, the tools already exist to ensure a high standard of housing. In addition, it should be noted that a number of developments on the edge of Cambridge are award winning e.g. Eddington and Trumpington Meadows and provide examples of innovative design and solutions.

It is considered that the selection of appropriate sites will be an important part to the successful delivery of infrastructure in conjunction with growth. It will also be important to consider the cost and availability of funding for the infrastructure required for development; the costs of providing initial primary infrastructure for larger strategic scale developments often means that less affordable housing is provided given challenging scheme economics. It is requested that the allocation of strategic sites in emerging GCLP is informed by the potential opportunity for those sites to support the delivery of infrastructure projects and also provide affordable housing. The Greater Cambridge Housing Market Economics Analysis (prepared by Bidwells on behalf of North BRLOG) demonstrates that there is sufficient residual value from development sites on the edge of Cambridge to support infrastructure and planning obligations in full.

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that development is located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Therefore, the site selection process for potential allocations in emerging CGLP will be an important part of increasing travel by sustainable modes of transport. It is considered that the site promoted by North BRLOG at South West Cambridge is well related to the sustainable transport projects to the west of Cambridge i.e. Cambourne to Cambridge Public Transport Corridor, the potential future Cambridge Autonomous Metro, Comberton Greenway and Barton Greenway. An urban extension at South West Cambridge would support the delivery of these transport infrastructure projects and increase access by walking, cycling and public transport. It is partly for these reasons that land at South West Cambridge should be allocated in the emerging GCLP. In addition, it is noted that Paragraph 138 of the NPPF suggests that sites which are accessible by public transport should be one of the preferred locations to be released from the Green Belt, where it is has been assessed that a release is necessary; the promoted development at South West Cambridge would meet this requirement.