Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

We support the Plan’s approach in proposing additional housing to provide flexibility and support the identified economic growth, at 2,900 homes a year. The trajectory of development must not be pushed backwards in the Plan. Meeting Cambridge’s housing need, particularly for affordable homes, is a pressing need and should be reflected in an accelerated rate of approvals from the start of the Plan period. In order to best address the affordability issues in Greater Cambridge and seek to ensure the needs to all community groups are addressed, the widest possible range of types, sizes and tenures of homes should be planned for in a wide variety of locations. This would also ensure that the Local Plan accords with Paragraphs 59, 61, 68 and 78.

Nothing chosen

We support the Plan’s approach in proposing additional housing to provide flexibility and support the identified economic growth, at 2,900 homes a year. The trajectory of development must not be pushed backwards in the Plan. Meeting Cambridge’s housing need, particularly for affordable homes, is a pressing need and should be reflected in an accelerated rate of approvals from the start of the Plan period. In order to best address the affordability issues in Greater Cambridge and seek to ensure the needs to all community groups are addressed, the widest possible range of types, sizes and tenures of homes should be planned for in a wide variety of locations. This would also ensure that the Local Plan accords with Paragraphs 59, 61, 68 and 78.

We support the Plan’s approach in proposing additional housing to provide flexibility and support the identified economic growth, at 2,900 homes a year. The trajectory of development must not be pushed backwards in the Plan. Meeting Cambridge’s housing need, particularly for affordable homes, is a pressing need and should be reflected in an accelerated rate of approvals from the start of the Plan period. In order to best address the affordability issues in Greater Cambridge and seek to ensure the needs to all community groups are addressed, the widest possible range of types, sizes and tenures of homes should be planned for in a wide variety of locations. This would also ensure that the Local Plan accords with Paragraphs 59, 61, 68 and 78.

In providing the infrastructure needed in our area, it is vital that this Plan be coordinated, in process and in substance, with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Transport Plan, with the Combined Authority’s non-statutory spatial strategy and with local energy and water supplier’s investment strategies. Whilst controlled by regulators, the future investment is vital as privately owned utility company infrastructure is not keeping up with the needs of the Cambridge sub-region. A system where utilities can forward see development more clearly is needed. Similarly, questions should be asked over the abstraction strategies of the water companies in the long term and whether water storage is sufficient for the growth of the area. Just assuming consumers use less is delaying considered investment into suitable infrastructure. UKPN also need to consider using compulsory purchase powers to lay shorter more direct routes (rather than digging up roads) and combine infrastructure and or safeguarded ducting along planned transport routes such as greenways and the Cam.

Nothing chosen

The Local plan should reflect the NPPF approach to Green Belt policies. Past experience around Cambridge has shown it is possible to release Green Belt land whilst improving green spaces, access and biodiversity. The Green Belt is a planning and not an environmental designation and given the imperative of development which maximises the use of low-carbon living and transport, more sustainable development options on the edge of Cambridge must not be ruled out, particularly those that have possibly the greatest opportunity to encourage changing behaviours and support people living more sustainable lifestyles.

Nothing chosen

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.