Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Nothing chosen

The Greater Cambridge area consists of Cambridge City, a Green Belt and an extensive rural hinterland in South Cambridgeshire containing many villages. The current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan has set out a hierarchy of villages that it says reflects the ability to deliver sustainable development. However, this Joint Plan has to deliver a strategy to meet all the growth needs across the joint area in a sustainable way. Clearly there are limitations to the capacity of Cambridge to provide for growth and the Green Belt is in part, designed to restrict the outward expansion of the urban area. It is necessary therefore that the more sustainable villages will have a role in meeting a proportion of development need as part of the development strategy as part of the balanced approach to the provision of new sites for housing and jobs. This accords with the advice in para 78 of the NPPF that seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. In determining the sustainability of villages and their capacity to take growth the Council will need to revisit the Village Classification evidence to reflect the significant changes in public transport provision envisaged as part of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Transport Plan. As a result, far greater weight should be given to the accessibility of villages to the planned public transport improvements, these sustainable transport corridors and the ability to create more sustainable community infrastructure by growing those settlements. Moreover, it is clear that the current hierarchy that seeks to limit the number of new homes in each village type has substantially underestimated the ability of villages to accommodate sustainable growth. By way of example the 2018 Local Plan sets out a limit of 8, or exceptionally 15 dwellings in third tier S/10 Group Villages such as Hardwick. However, planning permissions have been granted for up to 250 new homes in Hardwick since 2016, highlighting that it is a sustainable location with capacity to accommodate a much higher level of growth. The current basis for a hierarchy and the scale of potential development in appropriate villages should be reviewed in the context of the planned investment in public transport corridors such as the Cambridge to Cambourne corridor. In particular, the Councils should grasp the opportunity to increase the delivery of small and medium sized sites in villages that are located in strategic transport corridors. Given the level of proposed investment in public transport between Cambourne and Cambridge, Hardwick should be identified as a village capable of providing small and medium sized sites because of its improving accessibility to a range of services and facilities in both Cambridge and Cambourne by means other than the car. This will ensure it is has direct public transport access to the secondary school and the range of other facilities in Cambourne along with the wide range of provision in Cambridge.

Nothing chosen

In addition to the points made in response to Q.40, we are concerned that the current limitations on the size of new developments allowed within village boundaries are too restrictive, are arbitrary and no longer appropriate. In particular, the Joint Local Plan should recognize the changed context for sustainable development based on strategic growth corridors and planned investment in improved public transport. Policies should be criteria based to ensure proposals, respond to any local strategic objectives, local context and site circumstances and ensure that they represent sustainable development as required by the NPPF.

Pigeon support the principle of developing suitable, available sites within the urban area of Cambridge and larger villages. However, this must not be at the expense of the unique historic character and landscape setting of Cambridge and it is important that this character is effectively preserved. Whilst densification has an important role to play in meeting future needs, this role is nonetheless likely to be limited given the constrained supply of land and the need to maintain a supply of suitable employment sites within the City to ensure a balance between homes and jobs. Discouraging future occupiers from owning and using private cars depends on the success of other strategic policies to enhance and facilitate walking, cycling and rapid public transport within and into the City.

The merits of developing sites such as Cambridge Airport and Cambridge North as sustainable options are recognized. The location of new homes and jobs close to existing services and facilities available within the City would minimize the need for and length of journeys by residents and employees. It is likely to represent one of the most sustainable options for the Council and edge of City sites should therefore be considered very carefully. However, these particular sites require the relocation of existing uses and their development is likely to be complex and subject to significant lead-in times. Consequently, the Councils should be cautious with regard to the ability of these sites to deliver significant housing in the short to medium term at least and should not seek to place an over-reliance on them given the uncertainties associated with these sites which should be recognized as a longer-term contributor to housing supply as part of a balanced approach to allocations.

NPPF para 136 makes clear that exceptional circumstances must be evidenced before any changes are made to the Green Belt boundary around Cambridge. The planmaking process needs to provide the evidence to explain how the release of land from the Green Belt is an essential part of the strategic approach to meeting the identified needs of both Council areas. Pigeon would support some further Green Belt releases, if so justified, as part of the balanced approach to the delivery of a range of sizes and types of sites for jobs and homes, particularly where these coincide with proposed strategic transport corridors into and from Cambridge and subject to the five purposes of the Green Belt (para 134 NPPF) being adequately safeguarded.

The provision of New Settlements to meet future housing needs has been a significant component of the two Council’s development strategy over successive plans. However, the delivery of these new settlements has taken longer than expected due to their long lead-in times and significant infrastructure requirements. As a result, there remains a significant pipeline supply of new homes still to be delivered in the currently committed new settlements at Waterbeach, Bourn, and Northstowe. Pigeon therefore consider that the development strategy for the Joint Local Plan should avoid reliance on any further new settlements in this plan period and should focus on supporting the delivery of the three new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn.

Pigeon consider that the existing villages of South Cambridgeshire offer greater potential to fulfill the needs for jobs and homes in the district than has been recognized in the current Local Plan. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. Such an approach enables communities to grow and thrive, particularly where they benefit from location within strategic corridors where sustainable travel options exist. The community infrastructure base, whilst in many cases requiring expansion, nevertheless forms a sound base for further growth that does not exist in new settlements, for example. The net impact on the existing community of such development, where well-planned and of high quality can be positive. Moderate expansion of villages through the identification of small to medium size sites avoids many of the lead-in problems that delay delivery of development in new settlements and should form a strong element of the next Local Plan. The scale of growth proposed at villages should properly reflect improvements to the sustainability of the settlement due to planned improvements to public transport infrastructure such as those being proposed between Cambourne and Cambridge where this would not conflict with other NPPF considerations such as heritage, ecology and flood risk.

As referred to in earlier answers, Pigeon consider this option to be a very important component in delivering a sustainable development strategy in the new Local Plan. Reducing reliance on the private car, minimizing travel and reducing congestion are all positive outcomes of pursuing this option. This approach would capitalize on the significant investment planned by central and local government to enable the continued economic growth and success of the Cambridge City region and the various proposals from the Greater Cambridge Partnership and Combined Authority as set out in the Local Transport Plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In this context, Hardwick lies within one of the most significant transport corridors into Cambridge. This is being prioritized for investment through the proposals for the Cambridge to Cambourne bus link which would form the first phase of the Cam Metro, and the potential for this to link in with the East West Rail proposals and the new station proposed for Cambourne.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 Pigeon considers that the Local Plan should provide a balanced strategy towards the location of new development that incorporates elements of all these options to ensure that a range of sites are provided to meet different needs and provide choice and competition in the market. Densification will be an important component but its scope to meet housing needs is limited by the sensitive landscape setting and historic character of the City. Further distribution should be influenced more by the sensitivity of the site and sustainable access and transport choices than proximity to Cambridge. Much greater capacity for sustainable development will be released in existing villages by the strategy towards growth and transport corridors from and into Cambridge City.

No choices made

As noted in our response to Question 6, whilst Pigeon broadly supports the four big themes identified, there is a need to include and / or more clearly link the big themes to jobs, homes and infrastructure. We are concerned that this conversation focus might be seen as ignoring the published and planned agendas for economic growth in the plan area, driven by a world leading hi-tech cluster. Our view of the four big themes is that Climate Change is fundamentally the greatest challenge and therefore should be the top priority. However, the process requires that a sound plan is produced that offers to fulfill the growth agenda and meet foreseeable needs in a sustainable way. It is vital that the growth agenda priorities and targets are at the heart of the Local Plan conversation