Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

GREATER CAMBRIDGE PLAN: ISSUES & OPTIONS CONSULTATION: MELBOURN FUTURES WORKING PARTY COMMENTS Plan Duration We suggest that it would be better to plan to 2050 to tie in with the wider 2050 climate emergency goals. Using a 2040 timescale may encourage adoption of interim policies. However, we also want to see shorter term plans included and reviews in the light of key external factors such as a decision on the East-West Railway route. The Big Themes Yes. We agree with the suggested big themes. In addition, we propose ‘Localism’ – encouraging people to live, learn, work and play in their area rather than travelling long distances for any or all of their activities. Recognising that this will not always be possible, we also suggest that there is a focus on movement of people, for example improvements in public transport into Cambridge (extension of hours of the train service) and that bus services are extended and subsidised to encourage use. Climate Change Promote Self build to encourage people to build really energy efficient homes Use planning policies to ensure that new buildings are as efficient as possible in terms of insulation, heating, generating power and water recycling. There should be a focus on upgrading efficiencies of the current housing stock which stalled because subsidies have been withdrawn. Use the LP as a catalyst to providing good advice to local residents. In particular, the area has a lot of Listed Buildings – encourage these to be made energy efficient whilst respecting their heritage. All new developments should be required to include planting of trees. Woodland should be established in small pockets of publicly owned land and Fields in Trust. Natural Environment Tree planting and woodland pockets should be developed as part of measures to create wildlife corridors, enhance existing wildlife habitat and benefit climate change. Plan for local communities to green up. Make grass verges etc wildlife friendly and save money on grass cutting. Wellbeing and Inclusion There should be a focus on building community and self sufficiency in community. This could be achieved through planning policies which ensure that developments are linked into the rest of the community and include facilities which bring other residents into the development. All development must consider local health wellbeing and community initiatives when agreeing s106 money. The Plan should incorporate some measure, based on baseline and on-going surveys as short term developments take place, which will help to guide long term planning. Great Places Fund village design surveys and plans for all to keep the individual character of South Cambridgeshire villages. A key decision to make is whether the priority is ‘Roofs over heads’(ie focus on numbers and building them quickly and cheaply) or to make all development environmentally friendly. Jobs We think it is very important to plan for economic growth but the very important rating comes with the proviso that it is economic growth at all levels. We need to encourage jobs for all levels of education and to support people in less well paid jobs by ensuring a good and affordable public transport system. Keep commercial properties rather than make all into homes –we want mixed communities to support the ideal of working where you live where possible. Homes We ‘somewhat disagree’ with this proposal. More homes can be added in at the review stage. Demand cannot be predicted accurately that far ahead. Landbanking must not be encouraged by any aspects of the Plan. We also strongly object to including any policies which encourage (explicitly or by default) development of South Cambs villages into dormitory villages to service Cambridge and London. There needs to be an overall limit on development – Cambridge is big enough. Developers will always say there is more demand. Infrastructure The focus should be on developing infrastructure in a strategic way and then developers work around that. The current system, whereby developers say where they want to build and infrastructure then has to support piecemeal developments, does not work. Melbourn’s experience with Anglian Water suggests that there needs to be much better consideration by the utilities as to whether the current infrastructure really can support the level of development suggested. During the normal process of developers seeking assurance from utility providers, AW said there was capacity. However, when the capacity was properly modelled, it was clear that the system was already at 100% capacity. There seems to be a lack of strategic planning within LAs ie there is a need to join up the planning permission authority with deliverers eg County Highways. In addition, Melbourn has much shared infrastructure across the border with Hertfordshire and there must be cross-border collaboration. For example, are they working with Herts CC in their growth and transport consultation? We are very concerned about the health infrastructure challenge. Melbourn PC has been trying to work with our GP surgery and the NHS to develop a way of providing the facilities Melbourn needs to support current growth. Over the past 4 years, no progress has been made. How is the plan going to address the issues of Primary Care Networks and what they require at a community level? Similarly, our experience with education is that the piecemeal development Melbourn has suffered leaves us with insufficient primary school place even though the school has just been expanded. S106 contributions do not provide enough money for the expansion required. Make developers work together on infrastructure in context of the Local Plan. Where several developers are working in the same area, the rates of delivery of homes will vary so all need to make a strategic plan for and commit to the s106 money and be held to it. Or if development is sequential there needs to be an obligation to correct previous developers’ work if necessary (we have the example of the New Road developments). We wish to see utility delivers required to give concrete plans for the timescale for delivery of the required services before planning permission is given. We would like to see a review of the trigger points for infrastructure requirements and link this to a strategic view of what the community has been shown to need to sustain future development. This may be via a Neighbourhood Plan. Melbourn is pleased that the concept of limited development in Minor Rural Centres was upheld at the recent Appeal for a development in Melbourn. However, we wonder if the exercise should be updated since there have been many changes since 2012. Dispersal - Villages We urge that the unsolicited development in Melbourn as a result of the late adoption of the current LP is taken into account when considering which villages are targeted for dispersion. This unsolicitied development has left us with an urgent need for infrastructure improvements. We support dispersal on a pro rata basis or at least by putting development in those villages that have not been affected by last round of speculative development. We support the development of local brownfield sites except where this would result in a large new community being tacked onto the outside of the existing community without extensive efforts to integrate the new residents through infrastructure improvements to the whole community. The PC has previously supported the strategy of ‘Infill without overdevelopment’. However, that does not now hold because we want more tree planting etc in village for environmental reasons and wildlife reasons and to combat climate change. We support a general requirement (through planning policy) for buffer zones such as we achieved for the 199 homes on New Road) on all developments to shield from view. Villages should identify areas within the envelope for greening. Cumulative development within villages needs to be controlled. It is unsustainable to keep adding 30 +30 in Minor Rural Centres because of infrastructure issues. Current village development frameworks need to be respected. Where unsolicited development has already taken place, this must not be used as an excuse to justify further infill. Public Transport Corridors This is a good starting point but the future capacity of the transport links need to be taken into consideration. The Kings X to Cambridge line is now at capacity with no significant scope for further services. In addition, the old infrastructure at the village stations needs to be taken into account eg the lack of accessibility at Meldreth station. Again, this is a longstanding issue which is raise – but not solved- every time there is proposed development. Is there liason with Network Rail on this? There is a problem when villages start to join together along the corridors. We want to maintain separate identities. This should be supported by walk/scooter/cycle paths and bus links between villages to reduce car congestion on the minor roads. The local cluster of villages is on a corridor already – impact of additional traffic on current circumstances. We would want to see rigorous consideration analysis of the impact of further development on current traffic issues and potential ones such as the replacement of the Foxton Level Crossing, the proposed Foxton Travel Hub and the East-West Railway. Village Sites Communities will change as a result of the impact of the current Local Plans. For example, Melbourn has had a higher than normal elderly population until recently. As a result of recent development, that is no longer the case but we now have a full Primary School and 3 residential homes for the elderly. If flexibility means monitoring the changing needs of the community and adapting plans, we agree that there should be flexibility. We support looking again at the current classifications of villages as things have changed since 2012. However, based on the experience of Melbourn, there is limited opportunity for infill due to past development and we oppose this now on environmental grounds. The 30 homes maximum development for minor rural centres still stands as a useful upper limit. Particular Approach We want a strategic approach which takes into account cumulative development. This must include upgrading of infrastructure to support proposed development – taking into account any deficiencies cause by past speculative development. This must include health provision as that is the area where there has been no expansion of provision. Any strategy must acknowledge that Parish Councils cannot continue to take on responsibility for delivering the decisions made at Local Authority level. If PCs are needed to achieve the aims of the Plan, the requirements must be very focussed and developed in close co-operations with them. Views on specific policies in the current plans We strongly support the policy to restrict developments in Minor Rural Centres to 30 dwellings. We think this level is appropriate for enabling the development to be properly integrated into the village.

No uploaded files for public display