Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Response to Question 3 - A. The Site has previously been assessed and ruled out as a Local Green Space during the preparation and adoption of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. The designation was put forward by the Parish Council but the final assessment by the Inspector made it clear that the site did not meet the relevant criteria for designation. B. However, the accompanying Indicative Masterplan shows that it is still intended to provide green space and habitat for wildlife on the Site through the informal open space. This will also ensure that adequate separation is maintained with Dennis Green.

No uploaded files for public display

Agree

A. Whilst we agree that planning for the period up to 2040 is appropriate, in accordance with Paragraph 67 of the NPPF, it is more important for plans to identify a supply of specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period. Following this, the NPPF directs that specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth should be identified for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan. Therefore, it is clear that more focus should be placed on years 1-5 of the plans than years 15+. B. When planning for the shorter term, it must be acknowledged that medium and smaller sites are often best placed to come forward quickly (in years 0-5 years). This is because, like our Site, they are typically not constrained by multiple land owners, viability issues or delays in progressing detailed design. As such, these smaller, well located sites must be allocated now, as part of the development strategy, to provide an immediate and robust supply of sites for years 1-5 of the Plan. Larger allocations may then be more appropriate for long-term growth for years 11 onwards.

Nothing chosen

A. Given that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan is a joint venture between Cambridge City Council (CCC) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) it is vital that a strategy progresses which adequately responds to the needs of both local authorities and identifies a sufficient supply and mix of sites to deliver growth needs across both areas. B. As such, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on a single growth strategy such as Edge of Cambridge or new settlements in order to respond to housing need. There is demand for housing across all locations in the Plan area including established settlements and villages. Therefore, a range of types and locations for development is required to robustly respond to demand and ensure that enough housing comes forward and in the right locations. C. The existing preference for locating development, as set out in adopted Plans for SCC and CCC, is on the edge of Cambridge in the first instance followed by within new settlements and lastly in the rural area at Rural Centres. Therefore, a step away from this approach is required to ensure that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed as encouraged by the NPPF (paragraph 59). D. We see it as being key that the plan recognise the impact of infrastructure and investment not only in the Greater Cambridgeshire area but also beyond. This is particularly the case in the Central Bedfordshire/Bedford area where East West rail will have an impact on the future spatial strategy. Growth towards this area, in places like Gamlingay, needs to be considered in the context of this investment and growth.

A. Good growth can be achieved by progressing a spatial strategy that connects homes with jobs, public transport, facilities/services and high-quality open spaces. Allocating development on the edge of sustainable villages such as Gamlingay fulfils this criterion by being accessible to an existing provision of facilities which can encourage walking and cycle and provide access to established jobs and social activities. These sustainable edge of village locations will benefit significantly from the established community of the villages which encourages social inclusion and wellbeing.

A. See response to Question 16.

A. New developments should be allocated in locations where day-to-day activities such as walking to school, shopping and leisure can be undertaken by foot or bicycle to encourage active lifestyles. Additionally, new development should be close to open space and recreational activities such as countryside walks, parks and sports activities. Often, established communities are best placed to provide these opportunities with new development being required to either enhance or increase existing provisions.

A. In existing Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres existing employment and business locations should be protected to ensure they maintain the level of services and employment in these sustainable village locations. B. A number of large employment sites in such locations have already been lost to housing allocations / developments and further loss should be prevented by considering alternative options to delivering housing need such as edge of village locations and redrawing the village boundaries. C. In particular, the loss of small, often cheaper, industrial areas in smaller settlements should be avoided as once they are lost it is highly unlikely that it will be viable to replace them, meaning the valuable contribution they make to rural sustainability is potentially lost forever.

A. Flexibility and variety are required within the Local Plan in order to respond to changing housing needs over the Local Plan period. It is important to identify and plan to exceed the baseline housing need and allow scope for further development to come forward if it meets a particular housing need. This would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes to ensure that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed (NPPF Para. 59). B. Additionally, Cambridgeshire has significant housing affordability issues. By seeking to exceed minimum housing requirements this can only help to limit house price growth and help provide more affordable dwellings across the district.

Nothing chosen

A. In order to be robust and sound, the number of sites and dwellings to be allocated by the Plan should exceed the objectively assessed need to reflect the reality that some allocated sites will not come forward in the plan period or deliver the number of homes they are allocated for. B. Additionally, housing requirements are minima and the intention should be to exceed the number of homes required by the Government. This is particularly the case when considering the aspirations for growth in jobs and economies across the Oxford – Cambridge growth arc. Notably, the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) (September 2018) suggests that higher housing target numbers are likely to be needed in Cambridgeshire if the potential for higher growth in employment is to be met. C. The economic success of Greater Cambridge means it generates a need for labour greater than its resident population can serve and places an increasing pressure on the housing market. A lack of housing supply in the face of such demand has reduced the affordability of homes, particularly for those on lower incomes. As house price increases continue to outpace wage increases, Greater Cambridge is becoming an increasingly expensive and unaffordable place to live. To address these affordability issues, the quantity of land and number of homes allocated, needs to significantly exceed the Objectively Assessed need in order to begin to address the severe affordability issues. D. Overall, a greater supply of homes will help address the well-evidenced affordability problem and will ensure there is sufficient flexibility within the Local Plan to respond to changing housing needs/trends over the Local Plan period.

Nothing chosen

A. Whilst there are different advantages and challenges for each growth option as recognised by the consultation material, significant weight must be given to the NPPF in considering which growth options are appropriate to progress. The NPPF (paragraphs 133 and 136) is clear that great importance is attached to Green Belt and boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. B. Paragraph 137 explicitly requires the strategic policy-making authority to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. Compliance with this process will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies. C. Therefore, the onus is on the GC authority to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for growth have been exhausted before releasing Green Belt regardless of the potential sustainability benefits of Green Belt locations. D. Therefore, it is clear that edge of sustainable village locations outside of the Green Belt, such as Gamlingay, which present a suitable, available and sustainable location for development must be given significant weight and consideration for allocation before any land can be released from Green Belt. E. If further sites are required to meet growth needs once all edge of village and edge of Cambridge sites outside the Green Belt have been assessed and, where appropriate, allocated, then the Green Belt boundaries can then be changed and justified as necessary.