Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

2.36 The NPPF and PPG provides 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. 2.37 Creating a strong vision with key, deliverable commitments are the first step towards designing and delivering positive, welcoming and well-designed developments in which people can live, work and play. High quality developments that deliver strong placemaking are underpinned by a high quality masterplan that favours mix uses as well as residential, including work, education and leisure, all designed over a framework that favours and encourages walking, cycling and the use of public transport where the private motor vehicle is a guest and not the guest of honour. Developments that are well-designed are therefore focused on having pedestrianpriority and that are set in abundantly green spaces, connecting neighbourhoods and providing character. Moreover understanding the values, benefits and principles of designing for child-friendly neighbourhoods can, in turn, also offer well-designed developments that meet intergenerational and accessibility/inclusivity criteria too. Developments that positively respond to the challenges set by Climate Change and are designed accordingly in order to adapt, mitigate and limit its affect will offer the opportunity not only to deliver resilient developments but also to offer creative and well-designed spaces and places, using – for example – green and blue infrastructure to enhance these. 2.38 It is suggested that the design policies in the emerging GCLP 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.

Nothing chosen

2.39 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. 2.40 The Cambridge and Peterborough Devolution Deal commits the authorities in the area to planning to double economic output by 2040. 2.41 Therefore, it will be very important for the emerging GCLP to support economic growth in Greater Cambridge.

2.42 In response to NEC specifically, the knowledge-based cluster around Cambridge Science Park, St John’s Innovation Park, and Cambridge Business Park is internationally recognised, and the significant economic role that it offers to NEC must be fully harnessed to encourage complementary industries (Artificial Intelligence, R+D and laboratories for smaller emerging businesses that need the cluster benefits, maker-space etc) and optimise further employment opportunities. We would therefore expect a range (in terms of use and size) of employment spaces across NEC, including Science, Research & Development and Technology-related employment. However, in advocating innovation throughout NEC, policy limitations should not be imposed that unduly restrict any particular use at this stage.

2.43 There are two industrial parks in the NEC area, namely Cowley Road Industrial Park and Nuffield Road Industrial park. 2.44 NEC represents a significant and unique opportunity to create a new and innovative high-density, high quality, mixed use Quarter for Cambridge and its surrounding area. The opportunity is dependent on HIF that will facilitate the relocation of the Water Treatment Works and optimise the quantum of new housing across the Site. 2.45 Whilst it is recognised that other, non-residential uses, will also be needed in NEC in order to promote multifunctioning mixed communities and internalised trips, capacity testing and masterplanning will need to carefully identify what uses (and how much) will be appropriate. Whilst the prospect of utilising some of the Site for industrial use has not, at this stage, been discounted, justification for the need and location of such a use will need to be very carefully considered. 2.46 A greater understanding of industrial need is therefore required, and in particular how essential it is for certain businesses to be in Cambridge. Consideration should also be given to whether existing businesses are compatible with residential neighbourhoods, as if so, there may be scope to incorporate industrial (i.e. b1c) accommodation within a mixed use development. This might, for instance, include ground floor workshops/maker spaces where noise, odour, other forms of pollution, and type of deliveries will not give rise to unacceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties. For existing businesses where there is not a demonstrable need to be in Cambridge, relocation options outside the NEC should be considered.

2.47 See response to Q.25.

2.48 See response to Q.25.

Nothing chosen

2.49 We think that policy can help to support a range of business types, from a flexible range of unit types and sizes (including for start-ups and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises), specialist uses like commercial laboratory space, hybrid buildings capable of a mix of uses, incorporating offices and manufacturing uses, to shared social spaces, for example central hubs, cafes. 2.50 Flexibility can also be applied to proposals for meanwhile/worthwhile uses, which help to optimise economic development benefits and promote innovation at the earlier stages of the development process, such as in NEC, where meanwhile uses can help activate areas that might otherwise lie vacant.

2.51 The emerging GCLP will need to be consistent with national guidance on meeting housing needs. 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.

Nothing chosen

2.52 Yes. 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.

2.53 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. 2.54 In terms of NEC, the residential ambitions and opportunities for the area, and particularly for the Site, will need to be fully understood and embraced in order for the Vision and Objectives of the AAP to be realised. 2.55 For the high-density levels of new housing envisaged, innovation will be essential at all stages and in all forms. Traditional approaches to housing in Cambridge are unlikely to be appropriate. Housing will be made available for a much wider market than might otherwise be expected for a new settlement/strategic urban extension elsewhere in the county (e.g. Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne), including that which is more aligned to smaller household sizes e.g. students, post-graduates, young professionals, and older persons looking to downsize. Where family housing is to be provided, it will require ‘smarter-space’ solutions to reflect the Sitewide high-density approach. 2.56 Furthermore, we generally support the inclusion of a challenging target for the provision of affordable housing. There is a chronic shortfall of affordable housing in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City, and the residential growth aspirations in Greater Cambridge (including NEC) could make a significant contribution in reducing housing shortfall. It is also important to ensure that there are a range of homes of different sizes and tenures to achieve mixed and balanced communities. However, it is also important to ensure that the policy is sufficiently flexible to address viability challenges, and takes a pragmatic approach when recognising how different types of housing are provided and thereafter managed and maintained e.g. less reliance on traditional approaches of ‘pepper-potting’ etc. There is a significant cost in delivering the level and type of development envisaged and it will be essential to ensure that delivery of the development can be secured on a viable basis. Consideration must also be given to exploring other means of making housing more widely accessible, such as through PRS for instance. 2.57 We would also support consideration being given to housing provided to support key employers in the City, Housing of Multiple Occupation (shared living / co-living), cooperative housing, and specialist housing (elderly, students etc) in the appropriate locations. 2.58 A greater understanding of need and demand, market trends and viability will be needed to define housing requirements for both NEC and Greater Cambridge.