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

Yes - Only where there is strong evidence to do only on those sites which can achieve a significant modal shift from the car to other forms of transport

Yes

7.4 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 7.5 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. 7.6 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. 7.7 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. It is considered that open space, strategic landscaping and ecological enhancements are examples that would represent a beneficial use of Green Belt.

Yes

The College understands that national Green Belt policy is that any removal/alteration in Local Plan’s would require “exceptional circumstances” including assessing whether all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs have been fully explored. However, the College considers that where there is robust evidence, e.g. sustainable development options reducing travel distances and helping reduce climate impacts, then ‘exceptional circumstances” may exist to release some Green Belt land.

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. It is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport but housing at this site would not be delivered for at least ten years and would make only limited contribution to housing supply/delivery within the lifetime of the Local Plan, if indeed the site is even allocated for such development. Therefore, development should be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) as there is limited brownfield land to consider. 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 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. It is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport but housing at this site would not be delivered for at least ten years and would make only limited contribution to housing supply/delivery within the lifetime of the Local Plan and therefore would not contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply. It is also not guaranteed that the site would even be allocated for such development in the emerging Local Plan. Given these significant timescales and questions over developability/deliverability, the Council should focus on proportionately-sized development which can deliver within these timescales. This would include allocations on greenfield land and Green Belt within appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) as there is limited brownfield land to consider with the Plan area. 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 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 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 and in villages in close proximity to Cambridge, rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt which are inevitably more remote from employment centres and easy access by non-car modes. In respect of the land promoted in the call for sites process (March 2019) at Albert Road, Stow-cum-Quy, we do not consider that development at the site would have a significant impact on the openness of the wider Green Belt or the reasons for including the site within it. The Council should be mindful that development at this size is minor in scale and extent and would be set against the existing urban form of Stow-cum-Quy. Therefore, a modest level development would not affect the overall openness or value of the wider Green Belt in this location. It is also the case that land within the development, adjacent to the newly defined Green Belt could be set aside as public open space or landscaping which would seek to mitigate any loss of openness of the Green Belt or the setting of the open countryside.

Yes

Pigeon considers that there is scope to release some Green Belt sites on the edge of Cambridge for new development. However, it is recognized that most of the less sensitive sites have already been removed from the Green Belt and that any further Green Belt release will require the demonstration of exceptional circumstances and consideration of the tests in para 137 of the NPPF. In this context, it is important that the Councils have considered all reasonable alternatives and any site-specific factors before land is removed. Whilst the release of Green Belt land will have a role to play, this should be part of a balanced approach that also directs growth to sustainable settlements outside of Cambridge in locations served by rapid and sustainable public transport.

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. It is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport but housing at this site would not be delivered for at least ten years and would make only limited contribution to housing supply/delivery within the lifetime of the Local Plan and therefore would not contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply. It is also not guaranteed that the site would even be allocated for such development in the emerging Local Plan. Given these significant timescales and questions over developability /deliverability, the Council should focus on proportionately-sized development which can deliver within these timescales. This would include allocations on greenfield land and Green Belt within appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) as there is limited brownfield land to consider with the Plan area. 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 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

Yes, undoubtedly. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and that those exceptional circumstances are based on evidence and are fully justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. 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. they should make as much use of previously developed land as possible, increase the density of development to the extent this is appropriate, 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 noted that the housing trajectory for Greater Cambridge already assumes that a substantial number of previously developed sites would be redeveloped for housing, on sites where planning permission has been granted or are allocated in the Cambridge Local 2018. The examining Inspectors for the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 acknowledged the limited availability of options for residential development within the urban area in accepting the release of land from the Green Belt (at north and south of Wort’s Causeway). The Inspectors acknowledged that exceptional circumstances existed, relating to the level of need for homes and jobs, to justify the release of three parcels of land from the Green Belt; two for housing and one for employment. 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. As set out above, national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process. It has previously been accepted that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to housing and economic needs - see Paragraph 2.56 of the adopted Cambridge Local Plan 2018. As demonstrated in the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (prepared by Iceni Projects Ltd) submitted with these representations, there continues to be a significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and a need to support economic growth related to local, strategic and national needs. Therefore, it is considered that exceptional circumstances still exist to justify the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging GCLP. The promoted development at South West Cambridge is an example of land that should be released from the Green Belt through the emerging GCLP in order to reduce travel distances and respond to climate change. For example, the promoted development is well-related to the significant employment site at West Cambridge (predicted in the recent ‘densification’ application to have scope for some 14,000 jobs) and other employment facilities in the City, thus enabling some residents to live closer to employment opportunities. The close proximity of the promoted development to employment opportunities and other facilities in the City would increase the likelihood of travel from the site by walking, cycling and public transport, with associated benefits for air quality. The promoted development would retain and enhance existing ecological features on the site and provide biodiversity enhancement including a new wetland habitat at Bin Brook, which in addition would also retain floodwater.

No

They are already rich habitats that cannot be replicated again by the developers. How can you cover Green Belt in concrete and think that is a better environmental option. Electric/hydrogen cars will solve many of the emission issues, and with improved metro connections and train connections, destroying green belt to reduce emissions is an ill-thought out proposal.

Yes

No answer given

Yes

Yes. It would be absurd to regard the Green Belt as sacrosanct if this results in an urban belt just beyond and around the Green Belt. It may be appropriate to replace land removed from the Green Belt around Cambridge with equivalent land currently outside the Green Belt.

Yes

No answer given

No

The original intent of the green belt was to prevent unsustainable growth of the city into the surrounding countryside creating an urban sprawl and destroying the character of both the city and the surrounding villages. Growth would be forced to take place in satellite towns, and if jobs are co-located with new homes, this would encourage shorter commute distances. The premise of the question only arises if the plan breaks down and the new jobs are in the city and not in the satellite developments. So stick to the plan! More importantly, sustainability in the context of the climate emergency means we must reduce our carbon footprint. Most schemes for doing this by offsetting via trees and sustainable energy schemes like solar farms, wind turbines and land source heat pumps all require land. The only land locally available to both the city and the nearby villages and satellite towns is the green belt. A sustainable development policy would ensure that all change of use within the green belt is only for CO2 reduction schemes.

No

The Trumpington Residents’ Association believes there is a very strong argument against further large-scale development in the Green Belt. Any further development in the Green Belt would undermine the green belt purposes of protecting the setting of the city and the separation between city and villages, would further undermine biodiversity and climate change principles, and be to the detriment of the well-being of residents. It should only be contemplated if the criterion of “exceptional justification” is shown to be fully met. The fact that the preservation of the Green Belt may “restrict growth on the edge of Cambridge” is part of its purpose and should be seen as a benefit which contributes to all four themes rather than an undue restriction on growth. In our local area, we accepted the loss of large areas of Green Belt in the 2006 Local Plan, with the consequence that nearly 4000 homes have been built in the Southern Fringe in the last decade. In anticipation of developers putting in further proposals, we will object to further development in five local areas which are an essential part of the Green Belt and the separation between the City and surrounding villages: (1) the green corridor between Trumpington Meadows, Hauxton Road and the M11; (2) the land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the M11 and the west side of Shelford Road; (3) land to the west of Trumpington Road, from Trumpington village to Latham Road; (4) land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the east side of Shelford Road and Granham's Road; and (5) land to the south east of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, including White Hill towards Granham's Road and the approaches to Magog Down. We believe that it is essential that these areas are maintained as agricultural land or public parks. We are frustrated that it was not possible to comment on Question 2 without submitting a site plan. We are very concerned that the emphasis in the Call for Sites and Question 2 in the consultation is on development only; there should have been an opportunity to propose sites for protection, e.g. as agricultural land or public parks.

No

• The Green Belt is there for important purposes, and development can only be appropriate under “very special circumstances”. It is important that Cambridge remains a compact, relatively small city with the Green Belt providing a green, rural setting, easily accessible. A detailed review of the inner Green Belt boundary was accepted by the Planning Inspector at the 2018 Plan. There can be no justification for this to change just two years later. • The Green Belt is also very important to the setting and character of Fulbourn, bringing the countryside right into the village, and providing important views out into the wider landscape. This was strongly supported by a Planning Inspector in 2016 when a proposal for housing development on land to the north of Lanthorn Stile was refused permission. • Sustainable development outside the Green Belt can be achieved without major climate impacts if the necessary carbon-free travel options are planned for.

No

No. In my opinion, the greenbelt should be protected at all costs. I believe there is not enough that has been done to provide sufficient public transport so the options of how people travel to work have not been fully exhausted. For example, the train services need more carriages, there need to be more busses, people need to be offered more atttractive fares.

Yes

Yes. It would be absurd to regard the Green Belt as sacrosanct if this results in an urban belt just beyond and around the Green Belt. It may be appropriate to replace land removed from the Green Belt around Cambridge with equivalent land currently outside the Green Belt.

No

We should NOT remove the Green Belt as it's essential that people in built up areas/flats have somewhere large and green nearby to view/escape to for their wellbeing. The historic city of Cambridge must not be allowed to sprawl and should retain it's unique setting. Re the North East Cambridge Plan (aka Sewage site). This is a great opportunity for a large conference/concert hall (see Saffron Hall) to be built alongside much needed 'affordable'/social locally needed housing and great open spaces. A large multi-purpose facility with sustainable transport links (walking/cycling/bus/train) would serve the business community nearby and residential communities from the City and surrounding areas. Adequate infrastructure and must be in place from the start. Because space is at a premium, don't allow more large businesses here (Science Park/Business Park is next door). I have been shown images and proposals for this site of high storey buildings - one of 13 storeys!!!! - this is NOT needed I fear the place will turn into a ghetto/short term rents/red light district as has happen near the Central Railway station! There are too many homes proposed for this site.

Yes

But only if the criterion of ‘more sustainable’ is suitably qualified by a Venn diagram which includes the effect on Planet Earth as a whole, not just on the tiny patch call South Cambridgeshire. (For example, the drive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by a change to plug-in electric cars has a seriously adverse effect on centralised electrical power generation, with its reliance on fossil fuel and 30% energy loss in transmission.)

Yes

Do whatever is best for the environment, balancing climate, biodiversity, water security, air quality, etc. without trampling on vulnerable people. Instead of putting more housing in the city, consider moving more jobs to the countryside.

Yes

Please refer to the submission from the North Barton Road Landowners Group for South West Cambridge.

Yes

Yes, particularly where this can be achieved along public transport corridors which might reduce the overall travel distances required compared to growth being forced to leapfrog the green belt to villages further away from Cambridge. This has potential to benefit aspirations to reduce carbon emissions.

No

The Green Belt is an essential part of protecting the heritage and environment. Unless the planners/developers intention is that Cambridge should not be any longer the unique City developed over hundreds of years, then the Green Belt must be retained.

Yes

The NPPF underlines the Government’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of Green Belts, stating that once established, these should only be amended in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and only through the preparation or updating of plans. The NPPF indicates that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the Council should consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, channelling development towards the urban area. Where Green Belt land is required for release, consideration should first be given to land which is previously developed and/or well served by public transport. When viewed in the context of the scale of the housing need in Greater Cambridge and its unmet need, it is critical that all appropriate options are fully explored, including amendments to Green Belt boundaries. Grosvenor and USS consider that there are exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land to meet the growing housing need in Cambridge, especially where travel distances can be reduced and sustainable patterns of development encouraged. This will provide an opportunity to identify sites which can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs, especially where those sites are well served by public transport (as advised in para 138 of the NPPF) and also well connected to key destinations, such as major employment hubs, education and community facilities. Grosvenor and USS agree that climate impacts could be reduced if the Councils take this approach to remove Green Belt land if evidence shows it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances. Grosvenor and USS maintain that any Green Belt Review undertaken by the Councils should be a robust assessment, undertaken in accordance with the national Planning Practice Guidance and the NPPF, specifically taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. 3.48 There are a number of Green Belt locations where housing sites can be identified that reduce travel distances, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain. Trumpington South is such a site, situated on the southern edge of Cambridge, located next to the existing Trumpington Park and Ride, and the future Cambridge South West Travel Hub, with proposals to extend the guided busway around the edge of the site. Trumpington South is well connected via active and shared travel modes to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, the city centre and nearby community facilities, reducing commuting and travel distances to key locations. Furthermore, the Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal prepared by Terence O’Rourke, which has been prepared in support of these representations, assesses the local purpose of the Green Belt in this location which is to preserve its setting and special character and to prevent the merging of communities with each other and to the city. The Appraisal considers the contribution of the site to the prevention of communities merging into one another to be limited. The Appraisal’s focus has, therefore, been on the changing nature of the site and surrounding environs and how this has, and will, affect the setting of Cambridge city. The Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal conclusions advise that the alterations to the landscape, specifically the urbanising nature of development, such as the proposed Park and Ride, and associated reduction in visual openness, will alter the contribution of the site to Green Belt purposes. It goes on to say that this is particularly the case in relation to the setting of and approach to the settlement edge and that these changes have also, therefore, altered the qualities and function of the Green Belt. The Appraisal notes that the future development of this site would provide an opportunity to create a new settlement edge which responds to the changing and increasingly enclosed nature of the landscape as a result of development. It advises that the extent of the settlement edge should allow for a sufficient countryside edge to be preserved, ensuring that the landscape predominates. It concludes that alterations to the landscape would provide the opportunity to enhance the countryside edge and, therefore, the setting and special character of Cambridge. Lastly, the NPPF also refers to “ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt land”. The Green Belt and Landscape Appraisal advises that Trumpington South offers the opportunity to significantly enhance the quality of the remaining Green Belt within the site through biodiversity enhancements and access for multi-recreational purposes, as has been demonstrated in the Country Park to date. Grosvenor and USS consider these compensatory measures would offset any loss of Green Belt arising from the development.

Yes

Absolutely yes. Particularly the Green Belt that lies between Cambridge and the M11 and immediately beyond the M11. This would marry the housing growth to the centre of gravity of new job creation to the west.

No

Development of green belt reduces accessibility to recreational nature for city population who are not car owners.

Yes

Yes, I agree we should do this but the utmost care must be taken in terms of design, density, biodiversity and engagement with local communities. We can't afford to lose precious greenbelt land for the sake of badly-planned developments that detract from the area's natural beauty and add large amounts of traffic to the road network.

Yes

Yes makes sense – in moderation!

Nothing chosen

The green belt policy is a vital component in retaining the rural character of land and villages around Cambridge. In a Cambridge context ,the green belt can constrains the most sustainable choices for new growth around Cambridge, when the City is possibly reaching its growth limit within the plan period. The Local Plan should consider where the need is exceptional, larger settlements could be located at major public transport nodes on land removed from the green belt, possible using the East West rail corridor.

Nothing chosen

Reducing travel distances is a key benefit and may warrant use of Green Belt land if the village has it approved in its made Neighbourhood Plan.