Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Infrastructure does need to be in place before or in the early days of significant developments. Unfortunately, problems caused by economic growth suffered in existing communities are usually not addressed by S106 agreements with developers and they should be. The GCP should also be constantly telling central government that if this area is vital for national prosperity then funding from the centre is essential to support sustainable growth. Not just offers of relatively small sums in exchange for local undertakings agreeing to plan for growth on a large scale.

Smarter ticketing, a price structure on public transport that does not appear to disadvantage some customers, congestion charging for Cambridge, improving bus services so they are more reliable, frequent, and run early and late, are some of the options needing to be considered for the mix. The trend of withdrawing subsidies from public transport needs to be discontinued. There needs to be better connectivity between existing settlements to suit pedestrians and cyclists. Travel hub parking and the onward public transport services need to be at a level to persuade drivers not to complete their journeys by car. New development should be located in close proximity to frequent and reliable public transport services. The idea that people are prepared to walk for 20 minutes to or from such services and combine that with what could be a lengthy trip by bus or train is one that only exists in the heads of planners and developers.

Water supply and how to protect chalk streams in parts of the GCP area that are arid in summer hardly merit a mention here and should be a priority. The Cambridge aquifer cannot be treated as an infinite resource or an asset that is immune from whatever is built over it.

Yes

Yes. It would be absurd to regard the Green Belt as sacrosanct if this results in an urban belt just beyond and around the Green Belt. It may be appropriate to replace land removed from the Green Belt around Cambridge with equivalent land currently outside the Green Belt.

Keep the current approach

Much would depend on the size of village and the pattern of development of the settlement. The risk would arise of outlying plots being developed for houses for millionaires, or of ribbon development occurring. Large scale commercial developments and the associated traffic could quickly destroy rural ambience. Generally speaking, the current scheme of village frameworks and categories of settlements works well and supports communities seeking to preserve their sense of place. In the case of rural exception sites, more proposals might come forward if each community was not under a requirement to prove there was a need for affordable housing. It should surely be possible to take it as read that there was a need in the Plan area for such housing, so that Parishes would find it easier to initiate exception site projects.

Keep the current approach

Again, much would depend on the size of village and the pattern of development of the settlement. The limits on the number of houses that can be built on a site are appropriate, particularly for the smaller (infill only) villages. Much of the built area of those villages may also be in the conservation area, and it is important that those communities have sufficient protection from the Local Plan to safeguard their individual characters. It’s very important not to have dense developments in a small community where such features are not the norm.

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

No answer given

If the growth in the local economy is centred on Cambridge and its University and life sciences establishments, it makes sense to have as much commercial and residential development there as is reasonably possible. Particularly as development can be tied into existing infrastructure, including transport links.

Development of Cambridge Airport is supported. Development outside the green belt that would create a ring or arc of urban development in rural areas is not supported.

Should be given serious consideration as there are strong sustainability arguments in its favour.