Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Densification of the existing urban areas is long overdue. The British predilection for detached housing in cities and towns is massively self-indulgent. In Europe, blocks of spacious and attractive apartments are common and these should be encouraged on the outskirts of traditional British construction (noted as no more than 4 storeys high, which was once scaleable by the fit without the use of lifts!)

No. Green Belt land should only be released in exceptional circumstances. We believe that this is not necessary to accommodate growth over the Greater Cambridge Plan period. (But see also response to Q39, applying further from the City.)

(1) The most sustainable distribution model is to focus development in existing and new settlements on the outer edge of the Cambridge Green Belt and along existing multi-modal transport corridors, along with densification of the city so long as it does not compromise the city’s historic environment. (2) This model is a combination Options 1, 4 and 6. (Option 2 is essentially the development of Cambridge Airport. As the development of a large, edge of centre brownfield site this is the most sustainable option of all and should be developed; it is left out of this analysis as it is a single site and may not become available over the Plan period.) (3) Our proposed spatial strategy would see the extension of existing new settlements at Waterbeach, Northstowe and Cambourne/Bourn airfield, all served by railway stations providing a direct rail link to Cambridge North and Central stations. (4) Northstowe (4.1) Expansion of Northstowe beyond the planned 10,000 homes is an aspiration for Homes England and would accord with the Northstowe AAP. Providing Northstowe with a rail link direct to Cambridge North and Cambridge Central would increase connectivity and should be a priority for the authorities. (4.2) Land north west of B1050, Station Road, (August 2013 SHLAA Site 242) is identified in the Northstowe AAP as a long term strategic reserve. Its development would expand Northstowe beyond 10,000 homes. Historic planning documents (S/2011/14/OL) indicate that Homes England has a legal interest over land to the south, between Longstanton, Oakington and the A14. It is also understood that HE is seeking further acquisitions in the area. (4.3) Located immediately beyond the Cambridge Green Belt and served by the upgraded A14 and Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB), further extensions to Northstowe represent the most sustainable, and deliverable, housing option for ‘Greater Cambridge’. (4.4) The new settlement would lack adequate and fast public transport into Cambridge, as the CGB does not have the capacity to serve a new town of >10,000 homes at peak times. By routing the EWR Central Section along the A428 corridor, with new stations at Cambourne and Northstowe, and then approaching Cambridge from the north, as CBRR proposes, an expanded Northstowe new town would be served with a high capacity, frequent train service into Cambridge. At the same time, Northstowe and Cambourne would have a direct rail link to destinations westwards to Oxford. (5) Cambourne (5.1) Following the grant of permission for strategic site Land West of Cambourne (S/2903/14/OL and related permissions), a re-assessment of previously discounted sites north of the A428 will be undertaken as part of the SHLAA. Six years ago, SCDC rejected SHLAA sites 194, Land north of A428, Cambourne, and 265, Land to the north of the A428, Cambourne, noting, “The Council's view is that a physical expansion of Cambourne is not appropriate or necessary. Expansion of Cambourne would completely alter the original concept and character of the three related villages to one of a market town. The Council's view is that this cannot be done successfully given the way in which Cambourne has been and continues to be developed.” (5.2) This view was reiterated by the Inspector in the Core Strategy Examination. (5.3) This was prior to the allocation of ‘West of Cambourne’ in the 2018 Local Plan. If the joint authorities need to find land for a further 1,800 homes then land to the north of the A428 should be reconsidered in the next round of the SHLAA. (5.4) Cambourne is urgently in need of a railway station providing direct access to Cambridge. When this is built as part of the East West Railway line, the additional passenger capacity that a heavy rail line affords will enable further expansion of Cambourne. (5.5) EWR Co proposes a location for Cambourne station to the south. This would blight the village of Caxton and have poor linkage with Bourne Airfield and the A428. The CBRR route locates Cambourne station to the north adjacent to the A428, creating a multi-modal transport hub easily accessible from Cambourne, the new settlement at Bourn Airfield and the A428. (5.6) CBRR urges the local authorities to support a new railway station at Cambourne, located to the north on the A428 corridor, with a view to alleviating current congestion and increasing the new settlement’s capacity for further expansion. (6) Combining new settlements with public transport corridors scores highly on objectives 1-4 and 12-15 in the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal. The second most sustainable option is densification of the city. Some densification should be part of the overall spatial strategy (7) The most sustainable distribution for new strategic allocations is a combination of extending existing new settlements at Cambourne, Northstowe and Bourn Airfield.

Limited potential: villages should be protected from significant growth. Any growth should proportionate to the size of the village and organic/nuclear in nature. Joined-up village clusters are totally alien to South Cambridgeshire.

(1) This should be the guiding principle for spatial planning in the new Plan. See Q38 above. (2) Integrating transport and spatial planning is essential to reduce congestion, maximise productivity and environmental quality. Strategic decisions on the location of major new development in the Greater Cambridge area should be transport corridor led, located along multi-modal transport corridors with interchanges and nodes for local commuter use as well as long distance connections. A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet dual carriageway improvements, when with CBRR’s EWR route, create a road-rail corridor with potential for modal split journeys. (3) Multi-modal transport corridors with integrated transport options were a major recommendation of the National Infrastructure Report. * Wherever possible, these should define the routes taken by road, heavy rail, light rail, guided busway, CAM, cycle way and pedestrian way. * Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc

Cambridge Airport should be protected for longer term development as it has been identified a suitable site for housing and meets sustainable development objectives.

[Duplicated entries: this is the decider] (1) The main priority is the integration of transport and land use planning. The draft Cambridge and Peterborough Local Transport Plan 2019 (LTP) mentions the EWR Central Section only in passing, highlighting the fragmentary nature of the Plan led system. A key decision affecting future travel patterns and spatial distribution of development is absent from the area’s transport plan. The risk is that the Central Section will fail to integrate with other parts of the transport network and will fail to capitalise on the opportunities it presents to address the Greater Cambridge area’s transport problems. (2) EWR Central Section and Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) need to be planned together to relieve peak daily congestion in the city. The LTP identifies the CAM as the answer to the city’s local transport problems, by connecting the city with its commuter hinterland. This narrow focus on the CAM as the one and only solution underplays the growing need for a range of public transport options for the city and its hinterland. This is particularly the case if, as opined in the Regulation 18 consultation, the area will be required to plan for housing numbers over and above the ‘standard method’ calculation. (3) The LTP overlooks the potential role of the EWR to relieve local congestion and integrate light and heavy rail to address the city’s transport problems. The LTP encourages full integration to allow for “a true transport ‘network’ to develop” (LTP, 2.25) whilst ignoring the need to integrate EWR with the CAM and guided busways. (4) By including stations at Cambourne and Northstowe, and by approaching Cambridge from the north, the route alignment proposed by CBRR maximises the railway’s role in relieving congestion, providing an attractive commuting alternative into Cambridge to rival the private car. In so doing, the CBRR proposal does not hinder the EWR’s objective of providing a fast rail link to Oxford. What it does is to maximise the potential of the new rail line, ensuring it serves both local and long distance travellers. (5) If the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) genuinely want to “develop ‘hubs’ rather than ‘stops’ and provide better connectivity between modes (LTP 2.26) then it can do this by backing a Central Section route that includes local stops in commuter settlements Cambourne and Northstowe and creates a multi-modal road-rail corridor with potential for ‘parkway’ rail stations. The CBRR route is the only option that can create a truly integrated ‘central section’ that meets LTP objectives. (6) The CAM system, and one approach being considered by EWR for their Option E, requires significant tunnelling to create direct public transport access between Cambourne and the centre of Cambridge. By contrast, the CBRR heavy rail line with it northern approach into Cambridge through Cambridge North Station requires no tunnelling and provides a direct link between Cambourne, Northstowe and Cambridge Central Station using above ground track only, making it significantly quicker to plan and significantly cheaper and easier to implement. (7) In any event, the CBRR proposal does not preclude GCP’s aspirations for a CAM stop at Cambourne (LTP, 3.76). They are not mutually exclusive, but CBRR’s route would duplicate any CAM proposal between St Neots and Cambridge via Cambourne. If both were built, an interchange between the light and heavy rail systems at Cambourne would create increase the choice, capacity and resilience to serve both Cambourne and Bourn airfield developments, along with further extensions to these two communities that would help towards the future housing requirements in the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan.