Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

2.59 As set out in the response to Question 23 above, national guidance on design already exists which should be reflected in design policies in emerging GCLP. 2.60 The methods already in place and used by Greater Cambridge help ensure that high standard of housing is delivered both at the design stage as well as the construction (and post-construction) stage. Design Reviews panels especially, that take place from the very initial design development of a project, are accepted and proven to be a very effective method in encouraging high standards as well as overall design aspirations. Design Reviews have a number of tools associated to them, Design Charettes for example are proven to help further the design aspirations and solution for a development as well as assist with cementing them in their delivery by the client and project team. Design Codes delivered at masterplanning stage, alongside the outline planning package, can further ensure the delivery of a high standard of housing. 2.61 Internal residential space standards can help to ensure that appropriate homes are delivered that meet the needs of the occupants. However, there may be some formats where exceptions may be appropriate – for example co-living formats including student and young professional accommodation, housing for ‘downsizers’ etc. These groups may prefer smaller homes with greater shared space and it may be appropriate to provide for this need in the context of a balanced housing offer. However, in these cases we would expect there to be clear requirements around the nature and quality of shared space. We would also encourage pilot testing (on a smaller scale) of more innovative solutions to housing, which might include other micro-living models that have not yet been used in Cambridge but have proved successful in other UK/international cities. 2.62 In terms of external space standards, we support the principle of ensuring that all homes have adequate and appropriate access to outdoor space and support the aspiration for most homes to have some private outdoor space. We would, at this stage, question whether it is realistic to expect that 100% of dwellings will have direct access to an area of private amenity space, given the quantum of development envisaged and the range of different housing typologies that will be necessary to deliver this quantum. In situations where it isn’t appropriate to deliver private outdoor space, convenient access to high quality communal and public spaces would be provided. Ultimately, a flexible approach to residential amenity space must be taken, incorporating elements such as roof gardens and balconies as well as elements such as private gardens. 2.63 We also generally support the accessibility standards used in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018. This standard is meeting Part M of the Building Regulations, however due to the requirements of meeting a higher than normal housing number target on the Site, we would require flexibility on how the standard is applied. It is important that the Cambridge Local Plan accessibility standards offers flexibility on how the standards are achieved across the many elements of the new masterplanned scheme. While designing for and incorporating accessibility standards is also accepted as a progressive way to future-proof new housing, it is important the standards do not affect the ability of the scheme to meet the density and the target housing required. Currently the Cambridge Local Plan has adopted the optional standard Part M4(2) and has also adopted M4(3) based on a percentage, which is still higher than the national standards, this may have an adverse impact on our scheme.

2.64 In respect of NEC we have suggested that an infrastructure delivery plan should be prepared to identify the infrastructure required and the costs associated with those projects, in order to inform discussions on planning obligations. It would be reasonable to expect all development within the area to contribute towards the required infrastructure, where it benefits the AAP area as a whole rather than individual sites/landownerships. 2.65 In terms of how such cost is apportioned in an equitable manner we consider that this should form part of a specific study that includes, inter alia, the following considerations: ▪ Identify the infrastructure required across the AAP area that is necessary to delivering the comprehensive vision. This might include key routes, connections, bridges / underpasses, transport, education, energy/utilities, social etc; ▪ Identify where these are most appropriately located to meet the AAP vision; ▪ Establish a cost base for these, including appropriate cost of land recognising that in some cases it would be otherwise used for residential or other development; ▪ Establish an appropriate equalisation formula across the AAP, levied on all new development. This could be one or a combination of a tariff per m2, per net acre etc and may be varied by use class; ▪ Set this out in a policy / legal framework with an appropriate indexing mechanism.

2.66 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 GCLP will be an important part of increasing travel by sustainable modes of transport. 2.67 We agree that encouragement should be given towards less reliance on car use and more on using sustainable modes of transport. In terms of NEC, we have suggested that the proposed Waterbeach Greenway should be directed through the Site, to create a coherent route from Waterbeach to the station. This will allow future residents of the Site to cycle to the station helping to providing a means of travel for the ‘first mile / last mile’ of the journey to / from the station. 2.68 A new route for a busway from the proposed Waterbeach development should be routed through the Site down to Cambridge North Station. Stops on the route could form transport interchanges linking to other bus routes and cycle routes. High quality cycle links should be implemented to connect into existing infrastructure such as the Chisholm Trail. 2.69 The route of these two transport spines through the Site will help develop a single coherent sustainable transport corridor down to the station allowing seamless interchanges between transport modes where the routes intersect with one another. The interchanges will be located within a high-quality urban environment close to high density district centres and attractive locations encouraging linked trips and improving access to the district centres by public transport. 2.70 It will important to ensure that consideration is always given to promoting access beyond the AAP boundary, such as recognising the education/social role that Cambridge Regional College plays in the west, the retail and leisure/recreational/biodiversity roles of Tesco and Milton Country Park in the north, the leisure/recreational/biodiversity role of the river and green corridors in the east, and the existing Cambridge communities in the south.

2.71 The delivery of infrastructure in Greater Cambridge must be commensurate to the housing and economic development growth ambitions, and aligned to the broader sustainable development principles. The delivery of a high-quality public transport system, complemented by extensive new and improved foot and cycleways, and that connects a large proportion of the Greater Cambridge population with key employment, leisure and retail hubs, would seem to be one of the priority areas for infrastructure provision. This would help promote economic development, social inclusion, improve environmental quality (reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution), and wider health benefits for residents, visitors and businesses in the area.

Nothing chosen

2.75 The key test should be whether jobs and homes can be delivered in a sustainable manner. Supporting new employment in villages, particularly those with limited access to public transport / non-car mode can obviously help reduce the need for residents to travel to work by car. Consideration should also be given to enabling easier access to work / remote working, ensuring that adequate digital infrastructure is provided to allow people to work from home or from smaller incubator/start-up space/serviced offices etc.

Somewhat flexible

2.76 Yes, subject to meeting sustainable development objectives.

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

2.77 Given the quantum of development envisaged over the next two decades, we think there is probably an argument to consider all of the different approaches. However, we would add that strategies are likely to have a different level of growth associated with each. For instance, a greater proportion of growth should go into the Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt) than in Dispersal to Villages. 2.78 We generally support the existing sequential development strategy of both Local Plans, which seek to prioritise development in Cambridge, then on the edge of Cambridge, at New Settlements, Rural Centres, and then in Minor Rural Centres. 2.79 In terms of likely apportionment of new housing growth (i.e. beyond the 2018 Local Plan allocations) we would envisage the following sequence for Greater Cambridge: ▪ Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt) – for instance, North East Cambridge and Cambridge East ▪ Densification of existing urban areas – should continue to be prioritised in locational strategy terms, but potential questions on capacity for densification. Therefore, we think overall growth here is likely to be less than on the Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt). ▪ Public Transport Corridors – if the significant planned investment in public transport from both the GCP and CPCA is delivered, along with that of East-West Rail, there is likely to be a very strong case for high levels of new housing and employment growth in those transport corridors. A New Settlement in the East- West Rail corridor in Greater Cambridge could be justified. ▪ Dispersal – New Settlements – see response to Public Transport Corridors. ▪ Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt – it is considered likely that some Green Belt release on the Edge of Cambridge (and indeed certain Rural Centres), will be required. ▪ Dispersal Villages – it is considered likely that this will only offer a smaller contribution in respect of overall housing growth, but villages might help Greater Cambridge meet its requirement for 10% of housing growth on smaller sites (those under 1ha). A lower level of growth could help villages grow in an organic way, helping to sustain/attract services, facilities and new small-scale employment. 2.80 In our view, NEC is the ideal opportunity to deliver significant housing and economic growth in a highly sustainable way. It is accessible to Cambridge North, the Busway, and potentially a Cambridge Autonomous Metro station, along with pedestrian and cycle connectivity via the Chisholm Trail and proposed Waterbeach Greenway. It is situated amongst a world-class knowledge-based cluster of Science, Innovation and Business, which will help to facilitate the opportunity of locating large numbers of new homes near an equally large number of new and existing skilled jobs. 2.81 The Site is one of the largest brownfield sites in the Greater Cambridge area, and would therefore offer the opportunity to minimise the need for an equivalent level of development on alternative greenfield/Green Belt sites. It is important that the GCLP recognises in its policy for NEC that major housing development is acceptable and that relocation of the CWWTP is required. This is particularly crucial in the event that GCLP is adopted in advance of the NEC AAP.

2.82 See response to Q.42.

2.83 See response to Q42.

2.84 See response to Q42.