Question 39. Should we look to remove land from the Green Belt if evidence shows it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances, helping us reduce our climate impacts?

Yes

The work done in support of development of the airport site, particularly in respect of transport access, first prepared by the County Council in 2005, was only presented to the public after the Local Plan Inquiry had already been completed; and it left many questions unanswered then, and still unanswered now. That applications was then withdrawn in 2008 (?), but the airport site had by then already been taken out of the green belt, to the advantage (to Marshall) of the value of the site. Now Marshall have again announced an intention to vacate the site. It is not clear in what way conditions have changed which might now be persuading Marshall to announce an intention to move, except that the announcement co-incides with the preparation of another iteration of the Local Plan. A cynical interpretation of Marshall's annoucement of intention to move would be that the timing is conditioned by the wish to protect the value of the site at this particular juncture in the Local Plan cycle, rather than an active intention to move; and that this is simply a replay of the successful strategy pursued between 2000 and 2008. The salient facts about problems associated with effective transport access to the site risk being lost in the Marshall 'will they/won't they' leave saga The possible development of the North East Cambridge site raises even more concerns about transport access to a site which is heavily constrained on 3 sides, and impact on Milton Road (ie the fourth side) will make any new development on the site extremely problematic. This development also needs to take account of the need to provide more reliable vehicular access to the area north east of the Fen Road level crossing (see response to Qu 34)

No

The green belt plays too important a role in ensuring that Cambridge and the surrounding villages retain the characters that make them attractive places to live. Priority should instead be given to facilitating public transport from outlying villages into the city centre, as well as improving EV infrastructure so that those who have to drive can do so in a lower carbon way. Loss of any of the green belt should not be an option.

Yes

Only where there is strong evidence to do so.

Yes

Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is currently possible to circumvent the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a new village housing policy. Current policy is somewhat crude in focusing on unit numbers rather than an amount of development: two starter homes are very different from two large detached dwellings.

Yes

Yes, but an equivalent area of land should be added to the Green Belt further out from Cambridge so that the city still has a Green Belt.

Yes

Subject to demonstrating exceptional circumstances land should be considered for Green Belt release. However this should only be after considering all reasonable alternatives including village development in well served locations beyond the Green Belt (e.g. Melbourn).

Yes

As a last resort to meeting our carbon emission targets.

No

No. The Green Belt must be protected, even if that means trimming back on 'growth' targets.

No

I think removing land from the green belt should be a last resort - but land use within the green belt should also be considered within the framework of the climate emergency, e.g. making more room for horticulture, or starter farms, not just always a trade-off between housing and industrial agriculture in which housing almost always wins

Yes

We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option on terms of travel and climate change impacts. There are limited opportunities to locate significant new housing within the urban area of Cambridge and it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport. Some further development may be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) and there is limited brownfield land to consider but, the likely total level of new housing being contemplated inevitably means that a Green Belt review is required. This is likely to be a major and possibly contentious exercise, so we believe that the sooner the Councils grasp this decision the better. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan required the release of Green Belt land and the factors which drove that change still exist today – possibly more so. This is even more important given that the Consultation Paper floats the idea of accommodating housing above the standard method level to meet jobs growth. It is therefore apparent that Green Belt release will be required if transport and climate change objectives are to be met - i.e. significant further development should be located on the Cambridge fringe rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt.

Yes

We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option in terms of travel and climate change impacts.

Yes

No answer given

No

Land within Cambridge should be used first. For example there is lots of space off the Newmarket Road within the Cambridge Retail Park and Tesco site. This could be used for housing by reducing the car parking to a minimum.

Yes

We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option on terms of travel and climate change impacts. There are limited opportunities to locate significant new housing within the urban area of Cambridge and it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport. Some further development may be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) and there is limited brownfield land to consider but, the likely total level of new housing being contemplated inevitably means that a Green Belt review is required. This is likely to be a major and possibly contentious exercise, so we believe that the sooner the Councils grasp this decision the better. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan required the release of Green Belt land and the factors which drove that change still exist today – possibly more so. This is even more important given that the Consultation Paper floats the idea of accommodating housing above the standard method level to meet jobs growth. It is therefore apparent that Green Belt release will be required if transport and climate change objectives are to be met - i.e. significant further development should be located on the Cambridge fringe rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt.

Yes

We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option in terms of travel and climate change impacts. There are limited opportunities to locate significant new housing within the urban area of Cambridge and it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport. Some further development may be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) and there is limited brownfield land to consider but, the likely total level of new housing being contemplated inevitably means that a Green Belt review is required. This is likely to be a major and possibly contentious exercise, so we believe that the sooner the Councils grasp this decision the better. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan required the release of Green Belt land and the factors which drove that change still exist today – possibly more so. This is even more important given that the Consultation Paper floats the idea of accommodating housing above the standard method level to meet jobs growth. It is therefore apparent that Green Belt release will be required if transport and climate change objectives are to be met - i.e. significant further development should be located on the Cambridge fringe rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt.

Yes

No answer given

Yes

Yes – there are clear opportunities to undertake strategic releases of Green Belt land adjacent to settlements located on public transport corridors, which will unquestionably allow a significant modal shift in transport from the private car.

Yes

Yes – there are clear opportunities to undertake strategic releases of Green Belt land adjacent to settlements located on public transport corridors, which will unquestionably allow a significant modal shift in transport from the private car.

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. It is considered that Cherry Hinton is well served by public transport and future transport infrastructure improvements. The site at land off Limekiln Road in Cambridge is currently located within the Green Belt. It is located between the Cherry Hinton Caravan and Motorhome Club site to the south and the rear gardens of houses fronting onto Queen Edith’s Way to the north. To the east of the site is the playing field associated with Netherhall School. The site lies on the edge of the Cherry Hinton suburban area and is largely surrounded by development. It is considered that because of the characteristics of the site and neighbouring uses the promoted development would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages, and as such, the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. The site does not contribute towards the wider landscape of Cambridge, and in any event the existing trees at the site boundary would be retained and additional landscaping would be provided as part of the promoted development to enhance the setting of the site. Therefore, the site should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing, affordable housing

Yes

Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge, and the need for housing for older people in Shelford and Greater Cambridge. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. Stapleford and the developments promoted by Axis Land Partnerships are currently well served by public transport, and the accessibility will be even better once the new public transport route between Haverhill and Cambridge is delivered. Paragraph 141 seeks the beneficial use of Green Belt land including to provide access, for outdoor sport and recreation, and to retain and enhance landscapes and biodiversity. Axis Land Partnerships is promoting the possibility of creating a 20 hectare open space on the land between Hinton Way and Haverhill Road and additional strategic landscaping in conjunction with the promoted developments. It is considered that the open space, strategic landscaping and ecological enhancements would represent a beneficial use of the Green Belt in this location. The sites promoted by Axis Land Partnerships are located within the Green Belt. As set out above, it is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of these sites from the Green Belt, which are related to the identified needs for housing, affordable housing and housing for older people in Greater Cambridge and Stapleford/Great Shelford. It is considered that development at the promoted sites would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages, and as such, the sites makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. In addition, as set out above, the open space and strategic landscaping to be provided in conjunction with the promoted developments would retain the openness of most of the Green Belt in this location, and would enhance the setting of the sites and the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed new public transport route from Haverhill and Cambridge promoted by Greater Cambridge Partnership would affect the character and openness of the Green Belt on the eastern edge of Stapleford. It would lessen the impact that any development on the village side of the route would have by containing it and by virtue of the creation of the route meaning that the area would not be wholly undeveloped. For all of the above reasons, and because exceptional circumstances exist, it is considered that land should be released from the Green Belt at Stapleford and specifically at land east of Hinton Way and land west of Haverhill Road in Stapleford.

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. Fulbourn is well served by public transport, and it is also well connected to existing cycle routes and future greenways. The site at land off Home End in Fulbourn is currently located within the Green Belt. The site is a typical paddock surrounded by a hedge and post and rail fence enclosing a grass field. The site does not serve the community; it is private land, and there is no public right of access and nor is it available for public or community use. It is surrounded by community buildings, and there are recreation areas and outdoor sports pitches and facilities to the rear of the site with associated car parking areas. It is considered that because of the surrounding uses and buildings the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. The promoted development would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages. The site represents an example where the character of the site has changed significantly since the Green Belt boundary was defined - the site is now surrounded by buildings and a car park - which means that it no longer performs the function or purpose for including land within the Green Belt. Therefore, the site should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 83 affordable dwellings in Fulbourn for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. Fulbourn is well served by public transport, and it is also well connected to existing cycle routes and future greenways. The site at land off Balsham Road in Fulbourn is currently located within the Green Belt and comprises agricultural land and a public bridleway. The promoted development would include a significant amount of green infrastructure and strategic landscaping to avoid impacts on landscape character and important views, and to enhance the setting of the village. It is noted that there are no villages between the land off Balsham Road and the M11 corridor to the south. As such, it is considered that development at the site would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages. Therefore, it is considered that the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt, and in any event a large part of the site would remain open as part of a green infrastructure and landscape strategy for the promoted development. It is requested that the land off Balsham Road in Fulbourn should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 83 affordable dwellings in Fulbourn for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. Great Shelford and Trumpington are well served by public transport and future transport infrastructure improvements, including the proposed Cambridge South Station. The site at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford is currently located within the Green Belt. The site is currently occupied by a dwelling and garden, outbuildings for storage, and the land is used to store caravans. It is located adjacent to the Cambridge Camping & Caravanning Club site. It is considered that the site does not contribute towards the wider landscape of Cambridge and Great Shelford because of the surrounding uses. It is also considered that development at the site would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages, and as such, the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. The promoted development would include additional landscaping in order to enhance the setting of the site and the surrounding area. Therefore, the site should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 61 affordable dwellings in Great Shelford for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Yes

No answer given

Yes

This question warrants a dedicated consultation exercise itself but, yes, we support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a more sustainable development option on terms of travel and climate change impacts.

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. It is considered that the land at Park Lane in Dry Drayton makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. The promoted development at the site would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages. Therefore, the site should be released from the Green Belt to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Yes

This may be a sensible option but only if an equivalent area of land further out from Cambridge is designated as Green Belt. Otherwise we will end up with a circle of development immediately outside the current Green Belt adding to infrastructure and traffic problems.

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. Histon is well served by public transport and is also well connected with existing cycle routes. The site at land rear of 113 Cottenham Road in Histon is currently located within the Green Belt. The site adjoins residential properties to the east, an area of woodland to the west which would be retained, allotments and a paddock to the south, and an industrial estate to the south west. It is considered that because of the characteristics of the neighbouring uses and surrounding area the promoted development would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages, and as such, the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. Therefore, the site should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 62 affordable dwellings in Histon for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Yes

Taking into account the impact on biodiversity/climate objectives. Not all greenbelt land is the same.....

Yes

Yes – there are clear opportunities to undertake strategic releases of Green Belt land adjacent to settlements located on public transport corridors, which will unquestionably allow a significant modal shift in transport from the private car.