Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

No choices made

Within this question the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service invites consultees to rank a series of options about where new development should be located within the spatial planning area of Greater Cambridge. It explores six choices: - densification of existing urban areas - edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt - edge of Cambridge: Green Belt - dispersal - new settlements - dispersal: villages - public transport corridors This is a rather blunt tool in which to assess the spatial approach and a flexible approach is likely to be more appropriate. The Cambridge & Peterborough Independent Economic Review, which was published in September 2018 concludes that 'Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is an area which already makes a huge contribution to the UK, and which holds great promise for the future. It also faces risks, which could bring the success to an end, and challenges realting to creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone'. The CPIER, which admittedly covers a wider geography than Greater Cambridge, advocated a 'blended spatial strategy' of four possible scenarios. The scenarios considered included: - densification - dispersal - fringe growth - transport corridors The housing market area for Greater Cambridge is a very challenging one. Affordable housing delivery is a significant problem with high levels of demand for affordable and key worker housing. The ageing population will also add significantly to the demand for specialist housing. Consequently, the new plan needs to be very ambitious in terms housing delivery to ensure that there is a significant supply and mix of deliverable housing sites across the plan area, in excess of the levels of identified need, to boost delivery and help maintain competition in market and drive affordability. The joint Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (August 2018) noted at para. 21: “The Plan proposes that development needs will be met at two new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield. We have some concerns regarding the challenges of delivering new development at Waterbeach and Bourn…” However, because these development sites were not required to deliver housing in the early part of the plan period, the Inspectors concluded that due to the plans commitment to an early review there would be an opportunity to review progress as part of the preparation of the new joint local plan. We consider the Inspectors concerns to be justified and that the new plan should include a range of allocations and essentially more small and medium size sites throughout the area to ensure that rural settlements have the opportunity to grow and thrive in line with National Planning Policy advice. It is import to note that the Inspector for the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination wrote to the Council on the 10th January 2020 raising significant concerns in relation to the soundness of the plan. In particular, in respect of the overall spatial strategy which relies on the development of three Garden Communities. At para 31. of their letter they stated: “…the scale of the need for housing for the next plan period is currently unknown and uncertain. We are concerned that the Council’s chosen strategy (reliance on three Garden Communities) would mean that other sites in the district would not be developed or permitted for a significant period of time in the future. This would be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing towns and villages and result in a lack of housing choice in the market. It would also be difficult to accommodate changes in demand for certain types of development/services required over the very long period being committed to within the current strategy.” The Inspectors went on to state that the reliance on Garden Communities carried with it significant risks and a lack of flexibility. Furthermore, it would result in a worsening of affordability problem as it would delay delivery of housing to meet an identified need for a number of years. They concluded (Para. 114) that: “In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need to allocate more small and medium sized sites that could deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5 year HLS, until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of more affordable housing…” This reinforces the essential need for the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan to be based on a blended strategy which builds on the existing unban extensions already allocated around Cambridge and the strategic growth proposed at Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield through the allocation small and medium sized sites across the plan area. This is imperative to not only maintain supply and flexibility but to ensure that the rural areas can prosper and thrive and are not left behind. Summary of Comments: A blended strategy is supported but specifically including development in villages.

No choices made

Further to our response to question 6, whilst Climate Change is the most important theme, we believe that the big themes are equally as important as one another and agree with the statements regarding each one within the consultation document. Therefore, we would propose that these are all ranked equally as all are important towards sustainability. As the NPPF states, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and should ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’