Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Nothing chosen

Our Neighbourhood Plan specifies that developments should be designed in at most 50 home packages, with a different look and feel in each so that the essential mixed look and feel character of the community is maintained. The village framework currently is so tight to the edge of the existing housing that there is no scope for larger developments within the framework. With larger developments (which must by necessity be on the peripheral of the existing development) comes the risk of coalescing nearby villages: an outcome we would deplore. Smaller developments do not have enough scope for major infrastructure developments on their own. A contribution to such from each development should be raised so that once several are complete the requisite infrastructure can be in place.

No choices made

Q42 response: The phrase “we site” implies more control than is achievable. -We would all like new developments to align (in both time and place) to demand for local jobs and to satisfy the overall themes especially environmental. In practice the plan will include many sites, all selected by landowners/developers in the SHLAA process, and the timing will depend on the developers’ priorities. If the plan were not to list all the sites for the plan period on the same basis, but to have a phased start date for each and every site this might give some measure of control but that leaves the local authority with a target for house completions in each three year period vulnerable as they would have even less leverage over the developers.

The CPIER makes the issue with “densification” clearer as it is a proposal for the main urban area (i.e. Cambridge City) after comparisons with both Peterborough and Oxford. Of course, it would be inappropriate for the villages, creating as it would an increase in the imbalance of dormitory villages serving the jobs rich urban centre with the increased transport infrastructure and carbon imbalance. We do note that we see many properties in our community being extended (typically from 3 bed to 4/5 bed) and this is changing the housing stock in the opposite direction to the increasing need for accommodating the now more common small family/single person units. Densification would presumably reduce the scope for this gradual creep of the housing stock away from the demand.

If done the priority must be to the south of Cambridge in order for the housing to serve the expansion of jobs (which we confidently assume will be larger than current projections given the accelerating pace of advances in this sector and new firms wishing to co-locate with leaders in their sector). Care must be taken that in so doing that the residents of the existing dwellings are not then placed more than the recommended 800 metres from green open space. Imperative that such housing development is close to jobs to cut down infrastructure and carbon costs.

See answers to question 44 and 39 as they apply even more so with the encroachment into the Green belt. Much of the Green Belt land is adjacent to arterial infrastructure. As we understand more the danger of micro-pollutants, already 25% come from tyres and brakes, and the impact of traffic noise the unsuitability of these sites will increase as traffic (inevitably) increases. If such developments were undertaken (and we would be hard pressed to support such a proposal except in special circumstances), It is imperative that extra land is added to the Green Belt as close as possible to the land lost.

We have been encouraged by the quality of thinking by Homes England in the planning and design for Northstowe phases 2 and 3, especially the creation of a viable and vibrant town centre: a marked contrast to Phase 1. New settlements give the opportunity for designing carbon neutral from the outset with appropriate infrastructure. Bar Hill and Cambourne illustrate the opportunity and the pitfalls and, so long as we learn the lessons (and enforce the solutions on the developers), new settlements with a range of employment opportunities included form the start are an effective means of meeting the needs for expansion in the area – so long as they are started soon enough to be ready to meet the demand.

This needs to be done with care. Some of the villages are so small that growing them to be viable means building a brand new community. Others (e.g. H&I, Cottenham etc) are large enough to be viable (but not sustainable because of lost employment) but are unlikely to improve as a result of significant growth. Above all, the villages need to be viable social mixed communities in order not to create many new problems to offset the quick solution of finding space for new homes.

“Along” implies a ribbon style development along the major roads with the increased exposure to pollutants, and noise, as well as encouraging car travel to work. We prefer siting “blobs” of development to encourage social communities, places for employment and facilitating modern transport infrastructure (be it rapid buses, tram ways or minirail) to encourage use of public transport to work. Before work starts, how harmful traffic pollutants will have an effect on residents and how this will be mitigated must be considered and agreed.

In our village we now have four developments with roads built to adoptable standards but for which there is no Section 38 agreement and funding agreed. This leaves the dwellers (or in the case of affordable rent properties, the Housing Association) with the ongoing costs of road maintenance. This is a trend we deplore but are not sure if a Local Plan can include measures to alleviate this problem.

With the Director of the IMF saying that conditions are worse than in the lead up to the great depression, (and possibly the effects of Brexit on the Science community) we have not had a recession for 12 years, we need to be very wary of an economic forecast showing ever increasing growth, accepting that Cambridge continued to grow through the last recession. Granted we have a backlog to catch up, but the plan needs some mechanism to be able to adjust if the predicted growth disappears. Maybe this is an issue (thanks to the existing backlog) past the next 5 years with the existing plan, but some mechanism for adjustment should be included, so if reduced development is required it goes where required, not where developers choose to proceed.