Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020
Search form responses
Results for The Landowners search
New search4.49 It is essential to ensure that the housing is located in a sustainable location in the first instance. With regard to construction, the policies within the Local Plan should be clear as to the expectations and requirements in respect of the key issues of energy efficency and renewable energy requirements. However, policies should focus on the outputs that are critical e.g. energy and water usage.
No uploaded files for public display
4.50 It is essential that appropriate infrastrcuture is provided in support of new development that will allow the reduction in the number of cars on the road, support more sustainable transport, provide the infrastructure to support new jobs and homes includes schools, health facilities, utilities etc. Emphasis on large scale development. The current emphasis appears to move to an electricity sytle infratructure provision and yet there is already an acknowledgement that there is a significant lack of supply. To achieve the aspirations of net zero carbon, the delivery of this basic infrastrcuture is of fundamental importance. Without this, during the plan period, developers may find it impossible to comply with the adopted policies. 4.51 For any development it is critical that infrastructure needs are clearly identified up front. At present there is no certainty and details only unravell during the processing of an application. The councils should consider introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy that would clearly jusify any plannig contributions up front that may be required. 4.52 We fully support the proposed infastrucutre commitments as stated on page 79 of the GCLP that will impact Meldreth and Melbourn. This includes a new walking and cycling route that appears to impact our clients’ land and the proposed public transport improvements. The details are shown in the following extract: Extract Figure 22 - Planned Major Transport Projects in Greater 4.53 There is a clear intention to improve the sustainbility of both villages and the development the subject of these representations would support this objective further. The new development would improve access to the station from the site and there is the potential to improve connectivity to the station for the occupiers of both villages of Meldreth and Melbourn via improvements to the exisitng footways and the narrow unlit path and the provision of cycle facilites. A key benefit would also be for pupils attending Melbourn College from Meldreth with an imporoved footpath link across the current agricultural field.
No uploaded files for public display
4.54 We fully support the approach that aims to reduce the reliance on the use of the private car. In order to do this it is important to provide easily accessible and quality alternative options. The councils should support development in the rural areas where there are sustainable forms of transport and/or improvements planned. This is important to ensure diversity within the rural district and reduce the pull of the city centre itself. This will provide the potential to improve the situation for existing settlements rather than the existing focus on large scale new development. This would provide a more equal and diverse approach to development in the area. 4.55 The councils have already acknowledged the sustainability of the settlements and further improvements that encourage walking and cycling would further enhancements would provide real transport alternatives to using the car.
No uploaded files for public display
4.56 The priorities will be determined by the evidence base that comes forward and the nature of development proposed. If the councils focus on moving to a non-fossil fuel economy, the provision of electricity must be a critical part of the Local Plan.
No uploaded files for public display
4.57 The previous plans for the Greater Cambridge area have prioritised development firstly within Cambridge, then on the edge of Cambridge, at new settlements close to Cambridge, and at better served villages. This is clearly shown on the following extract on page 76 of the GCLP as follows: 4.58 There is a clearly defined circle around the city and noticeable development sites on the northern and eastern corridors and smaller scale employment sites to the south east. What is clearly noticeable is the lack of housing and employment sites in the south west of the area. 4.59 We agree that the special qualities of Cambridge and the Green Belt should be protected and options for growth should be considered in areas outside of the designated Green Belt. There should be consideration of improving existing settlements that are in sustainable locations outside of the Green Belt in the first instance. There are other sustainable options that should be considered first including the fact that not everyone wishes to work in the city centre. The current approach within the adopted Local Plan focuses on the city itself. The presence of the growth corridors coming forward, new ways of working and the intention to create an inclusive environment with the District requires a different approach.
No uploaded files for public display
4.60 We believe there should be a “somewhat flexible” approach to development on the edges of the village. The Villages have tight boundaries that have restricted development irrespective of the sustainability of the settlement and the contribution the land makes to the wider village itself. The lines are often drawn in an arbitrary manner without regard to the relationships and contribution a particular piece of and may make to the area as a whole. 4.61 We believe the current planning policy is also over restrictive and limits the amount of development on a site. In relation to housing, the number of units is controlled but this impacts the potential mix that could be provided on a site and restricts diversity of supply within a village. This should be encapsulated in relation to design and the character of an area and considered on an individual basis. A more flexible approach for mixed use development villages with a sustainable location should be allowed. Is there are particular approach you would like the plan to take for your village? 4.62 The development framework boundary for Meldreth and Melbourn are tightly drawn around the existing built up area, (see inset maps 76 and 77 of the adopted Local Plan). Whilst separate settlements, the two villages have a number of linkages that lead to the settlements operating together. There is employment in both villages with Melbourn having a higher level of employment and services but arguably Meldreth has more sustainable transport options with the railway. Melbourn also provides the secondary school. The current local plan differentiates the two villages in relation to the settlement hierarchy with Meldreth at a lower classification despite the main line railway station. We believe the villages should be considered jointly at the higher end of sustainable villages due to the provision and services that are available. In our view this is justified on the physical proximity of the villages, the existing connectivity with the potential to further improve the pedestrian and cycle connectivity between the two.
No uploaded files for public display
4.63 This question refers to sites within the village boundary. The key issue in the first instance is where the boundary is drawn. Once set, the boundaries are applied strictly. It is therefore important that boundaries are carefully considered. Once defined, we believe the level of development within the boundary should be highly flexible to allow a variety of development to come forward.
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: Villages, Densification of existing urban areas, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
4.64 We believe there should be a change in focus of development if the councils are truly committed to safe and inclusive communities. We have ordered our preference for development below:
No uploaded files for public display
4.65 The quality of the living environment is key to wellbeing. Whilst densification in itself is not an issue if carried out properly, this could have a significant impact on the heritage and the reasons why Cambridge has many special qualities as a city. In certain areas of the City, this may be appropriate, but it would need to be carefully controlled and with innovative design.
No uploaded files for public display
4.66 This would continue the focus on the city and not disperse development.
No uploaded files for public display