Question 36. How should the Local Plan ensure the right infrastructure is provided in line with development?

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Development should not be permitted unless the right infrastructure is provided, for use by the new development and to remedy deficiencies in existing provision.

Infrastructure does need to be in place before or in the early days of significant developments. Unfortunately, problems caused by economic growth suffered in existing communities are usually not addressed by S106 agreements with developers and they should be. The GCP should also be constantly telling central government that if this area is vital for national prosperity then funding from the centre is essential to support sustainable growth. Not just offers of relatively small sums in exchange for local undertakings agreeing to plan for growth on a large scale.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help the shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. The Cambridge Station already is an example where users are encouraged to use buses, to cycle or walk.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. See Parkin (2018), Dales (2014) and Wheels for Wellbeing (2019) for details. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become barriers for walking or cycling. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • The development of railway stations and the railway network should typically be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. [The following items are ‘lessons learnt’ from the Orchard Park development] • “Do not over provide for motorised traffic with multi-lane junctions at accesses into residential developments. • Good quality cycling facilities, such as designated cycle lanes and segregated routes both within a development and linking to external routes, as well as cycle parking/storage facilities, need to be in place when residents move in to achieve the highest possible usage. If proposed routes are not in place on a permanent basis from the start, some provision for temporary or interim measures should be made. • Any changes to the road network associated with new developments should not be to the detriment of existing cyclists and should improve existing routes where possible. • There should be more discussion between parties at an early stage in the planning process. Consultation on changes to junctions as part of section 106 agreements should include all relevant stakeholders, and the Cycle Liaison Group should further develop its focus on new developments. • Continuous footways should be provided alongside carriageways where possible.” (Cambridge City Council, 2009) “To achieve a society-wide move towards sustainable travel patterns it will be essential to make better use of better public transport for medium and long journeys. But it will also be necessary to create a virtuous circle where development design that encourages public transport also encourages the most sustainable of all modes of travel for shorter journeys — walking and cycling. This mutually complementary approach is possible because what is good for public transport use can also be good for walking and cycling: all public transport journeys also involve shorter trips to and from public transport, for which development design can encourage access on foot or by bike.” (Taylor, 2011) “The cities with the highest cycling levels, and those that have successfully grown cycling levels over relatively short periods, generally afford cycling good physical protection or effective spatial separation from motor traffic, unless traffic speeds and volumes are low.” (Dales, 2014) “The Dutch ‘street hierarchy’ strongly reduces cyclists’ exposure to motorised traffic by shifting vehicles away from where there is a lot of cycling. [. . .] Since the 1970s, the Netherlands has achieved an 80% reduction in cyclist’s fatality rate and is now, together with Denmark, the safest country in which to ride a bicycle.” (Schepers, 2017) “Personal safety is undeniably linked with the organization of the space. In places and on connections where there are lots of people, and therefore plenty of monitoring, there is a greater sense of safety. [. . .] [It] is best to route cycle routes as much as possible through areas where social activities take place, preferably in the evenings as well. [. . .] In addition, a cycle route through a suburb which passes the front doors of homes will be much more socially pleasant than one passing fenced-off back gardens.” (CROW, 2017) “A fundamental objective of good urban design is to connect the built environment. Analytical approaches such as Space Syntax have long demonstrated that if residential environments are well connected both visually and physically (what is often referred to as permeable) then they will facilitate more active travel, social exchange and connections, economic opportunities (e.g. for shops and cafes) and a safer built environment with less crime. Connecting new developments to their surroundings allows them to become part of a larger urban area (city, town or village) rather than operating as isolated enclaves.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 36. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • Schepers, et al (2017). The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety. Safety Science 92. • CROW (1996–2017). The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW-Fietsberaad. Ede, Nederland. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

The local plan should ensure that new developments have high quality cycling infrastructure segreated from pedestrians and motor vehicles. This infrastructure needs to be place before the first residents move in. The assumptions should be towards car free developments, where private car ownership is prevented/discouraged

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Infrastructure must come before buildings. It should be a principle that new building cannot come forward until there is a funded plan for the necessary additional sustainable transport, reservoirs and renewable electricity capacity. Large developments being completed at Cambridge Biomedical Campus before a railway station has been built, and the building of Cambourne with inadequate bus, metro or rail connections are examples that should never be repeated.

Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. An example of how walking and cycling access provision has failed is the Cambridge main train station area.

No more development. There is no water. Increase existing capacity by converting big houses into smaller units.

Ensure infrastructure is in place before homes/businesses are occupied!

The Trumpington Residents’ Association notes the importance of the Councils and developers working together to provide infrastructure at the right time in a development cycle: it is essential that roads, bus services, etc., are available when the population reaches an appropriate level, not at the end of a project. Also, residents are concerned not just about infrastructure but also services: in a nutshell, it is great to have bus stops, we need to have bus shelters and bus services as well! There is a need for more long-term investment in maintaining facilities such as roads, footpaths and cycle paths and much more cycle parking provision than has been the case in the past. These are all important in helping to meet the Great Places and Wellbeing & Social Inclusion themes. One development that will have major impact on Trumpington is Cambridge South station. We strongly support the need for a station, subject to fuller information about its impact, including on Hobson's Park.

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by St John’s College, Cambridge to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The College is a significant landowner in and around Cambridge and accordingly needs to make the necessary representations to the Councils in respect of its assets and on other relevant planning policy issues that will arise in the context of any new development plan for the two administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. As an employer of a range of workers in lower paid sectors, we would support policies within the new Local Plan that encourage the development of affordable housing and improved public transport from surrounding towns and villages to the city centre. This would support the reality that the cost of living in Cambridge is such that workers in many sectors cannot afford to live there. The College, therefore, remains concerned that any planning policies within any new Local Plan recognise that ensuring accessibility to and from the College within the Greater Cambridge area is convenient, safe and efficient is essential. Furthermore, sustainable travel needs to be available, affordable and convenient. In particular, it needs to meet the requirements of those working shift patterns and unsociable hours in 24/7 operations such as the city centre Colleges. As set out in the College's response to Question 11 , upgrading the fundamental services infrastructure (electricity, water, broadband) to meet the increasing requirements within Cambridge is an essential element of being able to develop a sustainable future. The current capacity is unlikely to be sufficient to support a full transition to renewable sources of energy, electric cars and domestic water consumption. Upgrading the flood plain management strategies may also be required.

Infrastructure does need to be in place before or in the early days of significant developments. Unfortunately, problems caused by economic growth suffered in existing communities are usually not addressed by S106 agreements with developers and they should be. The GCP should also be constantly telling central government that if this area is vital for national prosperity then funding from the centre is essential to support sustainable growth. Not just offers of relatively small sums in exchange for local undertakings agreeing to plan for growth on a large scale.

As I ave said elsewhere: the councils need to develop a view as to how the region will decarbonise heating. This vision will inform the infrastructure needs. They also need to have a vision of the future of transport. Both of these are uncertain - but vision of the long path ahead and enough flexibility to use option value is important. In particular - the future of personal transport is clear - how does the councl see the electriification of personal transport being combined with the sharing economy and digitial/AI developments and what provisions for charging infrastructure will be needed to avoid regrets. For example: I suggest that charge point infrastructure (ie networks if not the charge points) need t be roled out in major car parks: park and ride, business car parks, in town car parks. On street parking charging points not at this time, as this seems subjec tto other developments. Work with DNOs to model elelctricity demand and start a planned programme towards 2050.

Never mind infrastructure, growth creates a challenge for the survival of the human species. Stop going on about growth!! Ask a random diverse jury of current local residents what schools/doctors/etc. they need. Then stop trying to get any more people to come here. There will be enough people escaping the Fens-under-sea already. No more roads (or widening). Loads more rail & cycle paths. This is obvious.

By deploying a sequential approach to development through a Cambridge-focussed development strategy - through some densification of the existing urban area, selective urban extensions and development along transport corridors - infrastructure requirements and cost could be minimised, the need to travel reduced, and travel by sustainable modes enabled, including walking, cycling and public transport. An assessment of infrastructure required to support spatial strategy options is required through a new Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The City Council withdrew its draft CIL charging schedule from examination in 2017 – is the intention to prepare a charging schedule for Greater Cambridge in order to secure funding for infrastructure?

Detailed assessment of the infrastructure requirements arising from the development strategy promoted in the Local Plan will be essential to demonstrate the quantity, nature and location of infrastructure provision or improvements needed. An infrastructure delivery plan should accompany the Local Plan to demonstrate how and when the essential infrastructure provision will be provided to ensure that new developments do not create additional strain on existing infrastructure within Greater Cambridge or in surrounding areas.

No road expansion. Any rail expansion must include provision for easy access, bike parking etc for linking with sustainable transport routes. Discourage car use as means of reaching railway hubs.

Coordinating infrastructure provision with development is surely the essential requirement of the Local Plan. The policies should clearly require early provision of infrastructure when associated with developments. Developments that do not provide for an adequate public transportation plan (to address the social-economic issues of climate change, mobility and exclusion) or provision of key civic facilities from the early days of occupation should be rejected. Specifically, for new developments in villages, the developer should have to demonstrate journeys to key locations (nearest nursery, primary school, secondary school, sixth form college, supermarket, surgery, hospital, dentist, etc) can be made either by walking, cycling or within a hour via public transportation. This should replace the concept of a “most sustainable village” in the current Local Plan which is vague, inadequate and misleading.

Ensuring sufficient infrastructure is provided to support growth and in a timely manner will contribute positively towards the sustainability objectives of the Plan. A range of infrastructure projects are being promoted by Cambridge Ahead and the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) and development should be identified that can best utilise and contribute towards those initiatives. Development should maximise links to existing and proposed infrastructure to ensure walking, cycling and public transport trips are made but also provide the necessary support to allow for its provision at the appropriate time. The Trumpington area already has an established active travel culture, with 61% of residents choosing to cycle to work and Trumpington South is particularly well suited to continue to improve upon this culture as the Mobility Strategy prepared by Vectos demonstrates: • It is exceptionally well connected to Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the City Centre via cycle networks, the guided busway and Park & Ride, all within a 10 to 15 minutes cycle ride or guided busway journey from Trumpington South. • Sustainable connections are set to improve with a planned extension of the busway to the new South West Travel Hub to the south of the site, trials of Autonomous vehicles on the busway, and a planned new railway station at Cambridge South. • Trumpington South is well placed to take maximum advantage of proposed transport infrastructure and can build on these sustainable credentials, extending them and delivering a distinctive residential quarter with a thriving active travel culture. Providing the right community infrastructure to support development is also important. Trumpington South will benefit from existing infrastructure at Trumpington Meadows which will be available from day one of occupation. Trumpington South will provide facilities on-site to support the new and existing communities, including a primary school, a mobility hub with community concierge services, co-working and community spaces and recreation facilities. Trumpington South residents will also benefit from direct access to the existing Trumpington Meadows Country Park, alongside the significant on-site green infrastructure proposals, which include 23 Hectares of new parkland with multi-functional open spaces, community gardens, functional water attenuation features and significant areas of biodiversity. The provision and access to Green Infrastructure in development can assist with early place-making.

It's certainly important to deliver new shared facilities promptly. Developers must be held accountable for their failure to deliver on time, with real penalties for delays. Example of what has gone wrong in Trumpington: we still suffer because the GP surgery has not moved to planned new premises (which started to fall apart before completion and then had a leaky roof). The move is at least 3 years overdue. The chemist moved already and is losing business as a result. But even if new facilities are delivered on time, this is no guarantee that they will be used. Example of what has gone wrong in Trumpington: new shop units in Hobson Square remained empty while new residents pleaded for a food store (one has just opened, at last). I dread to think how many car journeys were made from 1000s of new homes to shops further afield over several years, when residents could have walked to the local store. There needs to be a realistic plan for getting new shops occupied promptly (e.g. low initial rent while occupation is incomplete?). Another example of what has gone wrong in Trumpington: Hobson's Park was mostly landscaped and planted by 2015 but has still not been handed over to Cambridge City Council to manage. It seems the landowner is delaying. One tangible harm is that Clay Farm allotments are still not in use, 4 years after the site was completed. 100+ residents are still waiting for the opportunity to grow their own food, 211 years since peasants were denied that right by the enclosure of Trumpington. Substantial and enforceable penalties should be built into development agreements to dissuade developers and landowners from delaying.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Current policies adequately address the need for the provision of supporting infrastructure, including public open space and car parking, as well as ensuring that S106 contributions are made to improve or expand local services, facilities and infrastructure where required in scale and kind to the development taking place. Development in villages such as Linton have the opportunity to contribute to and support wider sustainable infrastructure projects, such as the Linton Greenway. Not needing to spend large sums of money on new infrastructure means that contributions can go towards the promotion and facilitation of, amongst other things, sustainable modes of transport and improvements needed within the village.

The technical information submitted with applications such as transportation assessments and drainage statements provide the necessary information to highlight the on-site and to some degree the off-site infrastructure requirements for a particular development and the delivery of or contribution towards these infrastructure requirements should be secured by planning obligations under Section 106 of the Planning Act. Greater focus should be given to delivering development in sustainable locations with developer contributions towards pedestrian and cycle links. Wider funding, potentially secured through the Combined Authority, should be sought for major infrastructure investment, particularly in respect of public transport. Pooling of contributions towards education, health care and libraries should be encouraged in order to spread the burden and deliver benefits that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.

New development must be Zero Carbon or not allowed. No new developments should be allowed if they do not connect with and improve sustainable transport networks. Camcycle has good advice about enabling cycling with the right infrastructure: • Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Proposals for new infrastructure are of concern to the HCT. Three of them in particular could have a major impact on Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook and their setting. These are the proposed South Cambridge Railway Station, the proposed new public transport link (busway) between the A11 and the Biomedical Campus and the proposed East-West Rail link. In order to protect Nine Wells and the south end of Hobson’s Brook, which are in the vicinity of the proposed station and busway, The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should include measures for their protection. The setting of Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook should also be protected as it makes a major contribution to their ecological, historical and scenic value. The setting lies in the Green Belt of the city. The HCT acknowledges that the development of the Cambridge South station and the busway could be seen as ‘exceptional circumstances’ (the only criterion for altering Green Belt boundaries). It is the HCT’s view that the remaining agricultural land around Nine Wells and the south end of Hobson’s Brook should be protected as open, green space in order to preserve the setting of Nine Wells and the brook. Particular issues that the HCT would like to raise are as follows: 1. Physical damage to Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook themselves 2. Physical damage to their immediate setting, including ecological damage 3. Alteration of drainage that would detrimentally affect the flow and quality of water in Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook 4. Scenic degradation 5. Public access alteration or removal

By not being afraid to refuse permission to those developments which do not meet the right standards. Those that are too car centric, or not actively linked in with existing cycle routes and push people to shop or work too far away for people to cycle to work, school or leisure activities.

Major regional infrastructure is well documented such as East West Rail, Oxford to Cambridge Expressway and the Guided Busway which provides additional capacity itself. Major residential schemes require substantial investment for the necessary new infrastructure or at the very least reinforcement to existing supply. Such a strategy needs to be questioned as to whether this is the most sustainable method to support growth. Generally new and extensive infrastructure has a greater negative financial or environmental burden as against utilising existing utilities and transport networks. This matter is linked to Question 42 of where new development should be sited. Along with Social inclusion and sustaining the local economy where housing is needed infrastructure having available capacity is an important factor in support for a ranking system where the primary focus should be dispersal of development on the edge of rural and urban settlements. From experience of greenfield edge of settlement schemes of up to 200 dwellings there rarely has been a difficulty with mains drainage or SuDs. Even if there is a need to locally upgrade facilities (such as as treatment works which in any event is funded through the water companies and reimbursed from the development infrastructure charge.) increases in capacity are usually economically achievable. Again residing in South Cambs and surrounding districts the only potential barrier in the more rural settlements has been from a lack of mains gas supply.(Bourn, Caxton for example) However, since global warming effect has been recognised reliance on such fossil fuels are to be phased thereby nullifying a previous concern in support of a rural housing dispersal strategy. (From 2025 it will be illegal to install gas boilers in new build homes.) Utilising existing capacity in rural areas and edge of existing urban areas for housing is eminantly more sustainable and cost effective than new capital schemes for growth. Increasing the rural housing supply has the benefit of: i) Using existing capacity on the local highway network. Where there are deficiencies in the road infrastructure or a requirement for environmental/social/safety improvements such as junctions, new footpaths, traffic calming, road surfacing, street lighting this would improve the existing rural fabric which has continually deteriorated due to an absence of funding. ii) Providing increase patronage to local bus services and the opportunity to decrease the bus subsidy required from the districts. iii) utilising existing spare capacity within the utility netowrk. If capacity needs to be improved this is from a point of services in existence and can be generally extended without costly reinforcement. Where improvements are required then this would benefit the existing rural communities to have a better and reliable service such as the grounding of electric and telephone cables. The new Local Plan evidence base should carry out a more detailed study than has previously has been undertaken. Preferably by an independent specialist utility service to ascertain where there is capacity within the infrastructure networks to enable a more sustainable dispersal housing strategy which in reality is more readily able to meet the local housing need.