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?

Nothing chosen

There may be a case for releasing some green belt on the edge of Cambridge, bearing in mind that the principal purpose of Green Belt as stated in the NPPF is maintain the separation of settlements. This criterion should be rigorously upheld and developments which result in separations between Cambridge and the necklace villages and between different villages in the green belt strongly resisted . Some possibility for limited green belt release on the edge of Cambridge. Clear separation of settlements must, however, be maintained.

Yes

No answer given

No

No, Important green belt should be protected, surely there are other ways to reduce climate impacts such as cycle paths, public transport, car sharing subsidies. This seems like a lazy option, we won’t get that nature back and there is surely a reason for it being classified as greenbelt land. The only way it would be ok is if the build is done on those less beneficial sites in such a way that nature benefits but this would probably mean a very expensive build.

Nothing chosen

Hmmmm, I really don’t agree with releasing green belt land. This land is habitat for our wildlife which still needs to be protected.

Yes

Yes – the current Green Belt should be reviewed, with all ‘non-special’ areas adjacent to Cambridge removed from the Greenbelt, to be replaced with protection for important wildlife or green sites, and a green belt further out from Cambridge. All other sites within the newly expanded Green Belt should be considered for housing if they can be delivered with sustainable transport to all required facilities.

No

No. Decent infrastructure in terms of cheap and high-quality mass transport and better and more facilities to encourage people to walk and to cycle, is what is needed. Also, new development in necklace villages should include plans for employment, community-building and amenities so that the city itself is not the only place in which to find these things, and the need to travel is lessened.

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. The land north of Common Lane in Sawston is currently occupied by a riding school, comprising stable buildings, ancillary buildings, floodlit all weather outdoor arenas, paddocks and riding areas, and areas of hardstanding. The parts of the site that contain buildings, the outdoor riding arenas, and areas of hardstanding would fall within the definition of previously developed land. Sawston is very well served by public transport, and is would also be well connected by future cycle and greenway routes. The site at land north of Common Lane in Sawston is currently located within the Green Belt, and as set out above it is used as a riding school. The promoted development would seek to retain and enhance the existing trees and hedgerows at the site boundary, and would include additional planting within the development. The approach to landscaping at the site would seek to reduce impacts on landscape character and important views of the site, and to enhance the setting of the village. It is noted that the A1301 and a railway line are located to the west of Sawston, and as such development at the land off Common Lane would not lead to the merging of villages. 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 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 north of Common Lane in Sawston should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP to meet needs for housing and affordable housing.

Yes

Yes – the Local Plan should follow a process to consider the role of the Green Belt through a Green Belt review in the light of development opportunities that will be provided through infrastructure such as East-West Rail.

Nothing chosen

The most sustainable locations for development will logically be adjacent to existing development and in particular, adjacent to Cambridge itself. This is where the majority of services and facilities are located, together with public transport opportunities, employment and housing. In order to meet the target for net zero carbon by 2050, the most realistic option is for development to be delivered in locations that offer the most sustainable transport options. Given that the Green Belt wraps around Cambridge, in order to deliver sustainable development some Green Belt release may be necessary. Furthermore, the Green Belt consumes the boundaries of many villages that surround Cambridge, which also restricts growth in these locations. Some of these settlements are sustainable for further growth in their own right, as well as by reason of their close proximity to Cambridge and can similarly help to reduce climate impacts. However, as Green Belt should only be released in exceptional circumstances, as part of this assessment it is incumbent upon the Councils to consider all other reasonable alternatives to reduce the scale of Green Belt release potentially required. This needs to include an evaluation of all sustainable growth options on land beyond the Green Belt and an assessment of any non-Green Belt opportunities which may be available via co-operation with other neighbouring Planning Authorities under the DtC. The residential development of the Site promoted by Clare College would create an immediate opportunity to develop circa 100 new market and affordable homes in a sustainable location on a non-Green Belt site. The site is available for development, is achievable and deliverable early in the plan period. However, as stated, the Site also has the gateway potential to unlock an even more significant sustainable development opportunity on other land to the south of the station which is currently landlocked. The availability of a site which is both sustainable in its own right and which opens up the prospect of a larger, highly sustainable non-Green Belt alternative is a significant consideration to be taken into account when contemplating the overall scale of Green Belt release required across the Greater Cambridgeshire area. The promoted Site at Ickleton Road fulfils this function and is commended to the Council as an opportunity site for both early development and the wider opportunity available under the DtC.

Yes

Yes some Green Belt land should be removed within sustainable locations and where any impacts can be appropriately mitigated.

Yes

Yes, but preserve other places absolutely build close to Cambridge where people can cycle in. If you’re building on green belt land make sure you preserve nature within those communities.

Nothing chosen

No comment.

Nothing chosen

The Local Planning Authority should look to remove land from the Green Belt to support sustainable development options such as reducing travel distances and thereby reducing climate impacts. The direction established by the new Plan in reviewing Green Belt land at locations benefitting from public transport and thereby, enhanced accessibility, is supported. This complies with the National Planning Policy Framework at Paragraph 123a which encourages efficient use of land for housing, particularly towards locations well served by public transport. It also asserts that appropriate densities should be achieved at these locations, with particular consideration of higher densities to ensure that the best use of these accessible sites can be encouraged. By directing development towards these accessible locations, the emerging Plan will also contribute towards strengthening a modal shift away from the use of private cars which is a fundamental concept of the NPPF in its movement towards achieving sustainable development. Furthermore, it will contribute towards combating the impacts of climate change through reduction of carbon emissions and easing the congestion and pressure on the national highway system. However it is maintained that seeking the release of sites from the Green Belt alone will not ensure that sufficient sites are identified to meet the need of the new Plan period. Identification of land that benefits from high degrees of accessibility should also include land that is located outside the Green Belt, but also at locations that benefit from access to services as well as public transport options. The site at Fen End, Willingham benefits from access to social infrastructure, which includes amenities such as a primary school and medical centre. These are within walking distance from the site and therefore should be recognised as demonstrating a sustainable location for new development. Furthermore, the site is not designated Green Belt and so its development will not result in wider impacts or harm to the strategic purposes of it. As such, review of Green Belt sites alone will not go far enough in ensuring an adequate spatial strategy, given that there are suitable locations for development that exist beyond it and located in sustainable settlements that are able to and have the capacity to accommodate new development to meet the needs of the new Plan period. Releasing sites from Green Belt should be an element of wider and more comprehensive spatial strategy that includes other approaches.

Nothing chosen

3.1 As part of the preparation of the Local Plan, a review of the Green Belt should be undertaken to assess whether land currently within the Cambridge Green Belt still serves the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. Where land does not serve these five purposes or the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open (NPPF paragraph 133), the Green Belt boundaries should be altered in the next Local Plan accordingly. 3.2 Furthermore, Green Belt land that no longer serves the five purposes and is in locations which facilitate more sustainable patterns of development, for example, land within close proximity to public transport corridors or adjacent to some of the larger villages in the District, should be released to contribute to reducing climate impacts. 3.3 Greenhedge Farm, Stapleford is located within the Green Belt and a note providing a high-level overview of Green Belt policy and how it is relevant to the site accompanies these representations. The note concludes that the site shows some discrepancies with Green Belt policy and its essential quality of openness. The note identifies the following preliminary considerations: ● The existing built form and surrounding mature planting provides an opportunity to reconsider the Green Belt boundary in this location; ● The site should not be assessed in isolation, the Green Belt review should also consider the adjoining land. However, it is considered that the southern parcels have a stronger connection to the surrounding built form which lessens their contribution to the Green Belt; ● Discrete areas within the site, particularly the southern parcels, have different degrees of enclosure due to built form and tree cover. As such, they have less ‘visual openness’; ● The site is not located between villages nor does in contribute to the separation of settlements; ● The site, due to its location and scale, is not considered to relate to the contribution of the Green Belt to the setting and character of Cambridge. 3.4 This initial analysis begins to demonstrate that the site may no longer contribute to the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy nor the five purposes of the Green Belt. As such, it is strongly recommended that a full Green Belt review is undertaken and that the site’s contribution to each purpose of the Green Belt is assessed. 3.5 Notwithstanding the need for a Green Belt review, given the initial findings above, the site’s location and the existing surrounding built form, it is considered that the site: ● Does not check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – it is surrounded on all four boundaries by built development, with three of those boundaries comprising the development framework of Stapleford. The removal of the site from the Green Belt would therefore not lead to unrestricted sprawl; ● Does not prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the site is not located between towns or villages and is enclosed by the existing built development of Stapleford. The removal of the site from the Green Belt would not result in the coalescence of adjoining settlements; ● Does not contribute to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – as set out above, the site is surrounded on all four boundaries by built development and whilst located outside of the development framework, is not considered to encroach on the countryside that is beyond the settlement pattern; and ● Does not preserve the setting and special character of a historic town – it is considered that the removal of the site from the Green Belt would not impact on the setting and character of the Stapleford Conservation Area given the distance and intervening built form between the site and the Conservation Area. Furthermore, due to its location and scale, the site is not considered to relate to the contribution of the Green Belt to the setting and character of Cambridge. 3.6 In relation to assisting urban regeneration, the removal of the site would not discourage the redevelopment of derelict or other urban land. The site would remain outside of the development framework of Stapleford and in the Countryside. As such, its protection from development in planning policy would remain in place. Furthermore, the current Local Plan encourages development of brownfield sites within development frameworks and it is considered that this policy position should remain in the next Local Plan. 3.7 It is important that any retained Green Belt serves a Green Belt purpose in order to have a robust Green Belt. A Green Belt review should be undertaken, to assess whether the current Green Belt boundary is enduring and includes defensible boundaries; where it does not, then the Local Plan process must take the opportunity to review and amend, such as with Greenhedge Farm, Stapleford.

Nothing chosen

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? Paragraph 2.9 of the existing Local Plan (2018) outlines that a key role of the Local Plan is to provide for the development needs of the district over the plan period to 2031. Population growth and the continued success of the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire economies are important drivers for further growth. There is a strong link between jobs and homes and it is important that the Local Plan provides an appropriate balance that will provide jobs for the whole community as well as supporting the nationally and internationally successful local economy with its focus on the high technology and research sectors, while at the same time delivering homes to meet the overall housing needs. This must be done while protecting the environment and what makes the area a successful and attractive place. The site promoted by o2h for new R&D development is clearly located in the Green Belt and the applicant is very much aware that this is significant constraint that will need to be addressed as part of the future development of the site. The site is located immediately to the north of the Policy H/2: Bayer Crop Science Site, Hauxton, and the sit forms part of the original planning consent, which identifies the site as being suitable for employment uses in the context of the existing built form. The site (Bayer CropScience Plc, Hauxton) is allocated for a sustainable high density, residential-led mixed-use development. Outline consent to which planning consent has been implemented is application S/2308/06/O. This was approved on the 12th February 2010 for the redevelopment of the land to the south of the Hauxton Mill site, but the approved scheme recognised that potential uses for the listed Mill (vacant) and Mill House (currently offices) that fit in with the comprehensive vision for the site are being investigated and specific proposals for these buildings can come forward in due course under separate planning applications according to demand and the needs of particular occupiers. It was also recognised that sympathetic and viable long-term uses are found for these buildings to ensure their long-term future and security. The applicant is of the view that the Green Belt boundary reviewed, as there are opportunities for sustainable employment development, which cannot be realised. We agree with the suggestion that 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. This proposal presents a unique opportunity to revitalise a neglected post-industrial site and abandoned listed water mill, to provide valuable employment use and increased public access. Benefits include: • Renovation of the Grade II listed Hauxton Mill, which is currently boarded up, having laid empty for decades • Provision of public access to the restored mill building • Provision of a cafe in the mill, open to staff and the public • Redevelopment of the Grade II listed Old Mill House, to provide offices and a small lab space. The building was formerly used as offices, but has been empty for years and is in a poor state of repair • Provision of employment space in the form of offices within the upper floor of the mill and a new building laboratory block on the site of the New Mill House • New landscaping on the site of the former Bayer crop science facilities.

Nothing chosen

Southern and Regional Developments(Joscelyn) consider that the Local Planning Authority should look to remove land from the Green Belt to support sustainable development options across the plan area and reduce travel distances within communities so reducing climate impacts. They support the direction established by the new Plan in reviewing Green Belt land at locations benefitting from public transport and thereby, enhanced accessibility. This complies with the National Planning Policy Framework at Paragraph 123a which encourages efficient use of land for housing, particularly towards locations well served by public transport. It also asserts that appropriate densities should be achieved at these locations, with particular consideration of higher densities to ensure that the best use of these accessible sites can be encouraged. By directing development towards these accessible locations, the emerging Plan will also contribute towards strengthening a modal shift away from the use of private cars which is a fundamental concept of the NPPF in its movement towards achieving sustainable development. Furthermore, it will contribute towards combating the impacts of climate change through reduction of carbon emissions and easing the congestion and pressure on the national highway system. However it is maintained that seeking the release of sites from the Green Belt alone will not ensure that sufficient sites are identified to meet the need of the new Plan period. Identification of land that benefits from high degrees of accessibility should also include land that is located outside the Green Belt, but also at locations that benefit from access to services as well as public transport options. It is considered that the Dairy Farm site at Boxworth End, Swavesey benefits from good access to social infrastructure, with close walking distance, with amenities to includes a medical clinic, secondary school, post office and village shop. As these are within close proximity to the site, it should be recognised that the site is a sustainable location to accommodate new development. Furthermore, the site is not designated Green Belt and so its development will not result in wider impacts or harm to the strategic purposes of it. Summary of Comments: As such, review of Green Belt sites alone will not go far enough in ensuring an adequate spatial strategy, given that there are suitable locations for development that exist beyond it and located in sustainable settlements that are able to and have the capacity to accommodate new development to meet the needs of the new Plan period.

Nothing chosen

8.1 The Local Plan should be focussed on providing sustainable development in the most appropriate locations. To prioritise the four big themes will result in some development impacts. 8.2 Notwithstanding the underlying purposes of the Green Belt (Para. 134 of the NPPF), where it can be demonstrated that appropriate development can be brought forward in the Green Belt, sites should be considered within the context of their individual circumstances. Applications should be considered in the context of Para. 136 of the NPPF, providing an assessment as to whether it can be demonstrated that a proposed development would bring substantial benefits, outweighing the loss of Green Belt land, thereby demonstrating exceptional circumstances needed to justify Green Belt release. In accordance with Para. 138, Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to reflect the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and particularly, if the land has been previously developed or is well-served by public transport, there should be policy provision to allow for a consideration of this in order to determine Green Belt planning applications within the emerging Local Plan.

Nothing chosen

6.4 Yes. 6.5 It is important to note that the Green Belt is a planning designation rather than an environmental designation. As set out in the NPPF (paragraph 136), Green Belt boundaries can be altered where exceptional circumstances are evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. The current and future constraints to housing development within Cambridge and its fringe, together with the high growth needs of the area and the importance of delivering growth in a sustainable way, presents a strong case to review the Cambridge Green Belt. 6.6 The high level of housing delivery needed to sustain an ongoing five-year housing supply throughout the plan period is best met through a mix of housing sites and land availability. Sustainable growth within settlements surrounding Cambridge can make an important contribution to this objective, creating opportunity to rebalance housing supply and foster zero carbon developments and lifestyles through reduced travel distances and sustainable travel options. Releasing land from the Green Belt in close proximity to Cambridge, where existing infrastructure can be enhanced, arguably provides the best opportunity to influence and change people’s behaviours around travel and commuting and encourage adoption of more sustainable modes of transport. 6.7 The villages that are fully or partly surrounded by the Cambridge Green Belt are those that are located in closest proximity to Cambridge and therefore bring significant opportunities for development that is accessible to the City. In order to provide truly sustainable development, some Green Belt sites in these locations must be considered through the Local Plan process as potentially suitable options. The appropriate release of Green Belt sites could assist in achieving sustainable development in keeping with the ‘climate change’ big theme of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan. 6.8 Hill and Chivers consider that the Councils should undertake a comprehensive review of the Green Belt within Greater Cambridge as a key part of the Local Plan process. This will inform important strategic decisions regarding the most appropriate locations for development during the plan period. 6.9 In relation to land east of Cambridge Road, Hardwick, Terence O’Rourke has undertaken a Preliminary Green Belt Assessment (March 2019) which confirms that the Site performs poorly when assessed against Green Belt purposes. The release of the Site to create a sustainable village extension would provide a strong new Green Belt boundary, without prejudicing the remaining Cambridge Green Belt.

Nothing chosen

2.25 The most sustainable location for development will inevitably be adjacent to existing development, and in particular, adjacent to Cambridge itself. This is where the majority of services and facilities are, along with public transport opportunities, employment and housing. Development must be delivered in locations that offer the most sustainable transport options in order to meet the target for net zero carbon by 2050. Given that the Green Belt closely wraps around the extent of Cambridge, in order to deliver sustainable development some Green Belt release will be necessary. 2.26 Furthermore, the Green Belt curtails the boundaries of many villages that surround Cambridge, which also acts to restrict growth in these locations. Many of these settlements are sustainable for further growth in their own right, as well as due to their proximity to Cambridge. 2.27 Over the past 20 years there have been numerous reviews of the Green Belt, and the value of the areas within it. Where areas of the Green Belt have been deemed to be of lesser value and importance within the reviews, sites in sustainable locations should be those first considered for release and subsequent development. The land around Milton is such an area and therefore the Land at Ely Road, Milton must be considered for development. 2.28 A review of the Cambridge Green Belt was undertaken in 2012 and again in 2016, but the area north of the A14 was not included in these reviews. The most recent study of the Green Belt that covers this site dates from 2002 (Cambridge Green Belt Study, LDA, 2002). This describes the Land at Ely Road, Milton as being within an area defined as ‘rural land within the Green Belt’ (Plan ‘townscape and landscape analysis’) and in terms of its townscape and landscape role is within a very large area defined as ‘outer rural areas of the Green Belt’. These areas are described as ‘areas of landscape from which distinct views of the city are scarce or absent. The function of this landscape is in providing a backdrop to views of the city, and in providing a setting for approaches to connective, supportive and distinctive areas of townscape and landscape’. 2.29 On the plan ‘Special Qualities to be safeguarded’ the Land at Ely Road, Milton is within a very large area defined as ‘Rural Land’ and on the plan ‘A vision of Cambridge’ Land at Ely Road, Milton is with the ‘Outer Green Belt’ with the objective to ‘maintain and enhance the quality of the open, rural landscape, the diversity of character and the qualities of views, approaches and villages. Improve access and recreational facilities’. 2.30 In respect of the ‘Outer Green Belt’ the study concludes (page 66) that it plays ‘a lesser role in contributing to the distinctiveness of Cambridge and its setting, and are less finite as land that plays this role continues to an undefined extent beyond the Green Belt boundary. Outer rural areas might have the potential to accommodate change (and development) that does not adversely affect their setting of and special character of Cambridge, subject to detailed assessment’. 2.31 The lack of any fine grain analysis of the Green Belt in the vicinity of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site inevitably means only the broadest of categorisation has been made and so it is necessary to consider other sources for more detailed analysis. 2.32 The removal of land from the Green Belt can be undertaken as part of the new Local Plan. The NPPF states this should only be where there are exceptional circumstances that are fully evidenced and justified. The test within the NPPF is that any harm to the Green Belt needs to be outweighed by other considerations. 2.33 It can be concluded from the published study that the Green Belt that covers the Land at Ely Road, Milton site plays a very limited role in achieving the purposes of the Green Belt. Dealing with each of the 3 purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt set out above: • Unique character of Cambridge - the Land at Ely Road, Milton site is within a part of the Cambridge Green Belt which is described in the 2002 LDA study as ‘areas of landscape from which distinct views of the city are scarce or absent’ and therefore cannot reasonably be considered to form part of the ‘unique character’ of the city; • Quality of setting of the city - the development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site will have no impact on the quality of the setting of Cambridge and indeed Milton. The area is considered as playing a lesser role in contributing to the distinctiveness of Cambridge and its setting in the 2002 LDA study; and • Prevent communities from merging into one another - the development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site will not lead to the coalescence of settlements. The Land at Ely Road, Milton site is on the edge of Milton and village of Waterbeach is some considerable distance to the north. The development would form a natural expansion of the village of Milton. 2.34 Turning then to the factors set out in the Local Plan which define the special character of Cambridge and its setting and the extent to which development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site may affect them: • Key views of Cambridge - the 2002 LDA study accepts there are no key views of the city from the outer Green Belt; • A soft green edge to the city – the Land at Ely Road, Milton site has extensive tree and hedge planting and a golf course on much of the northern and western boundaries which will be retained as unbuilt and opportunities taken to enhance planting and biodiversity so maintaining a ‘green edge’; • A distinctive urban edge - the development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site would have no impact on the urban edge of the city – see above comment’; • Green corridors penetrating into the city. The Land at Ely Road, Milton site is not within any identified green corridor; • Designated sites and other features – the Land at Ely Road, Milton site is not within or in close proximity to any designated site that contributes positively to the character of the landscape setting; • The distribution, physical separation of Green Belt villages – as set out above the Land at Ely Road, Milton site relates to an adjacent village and it is within an area defined to the west by the A10 and is a considerable distance from Waterbeach to the north. The development would form a logical and natural expansion to Milton; and • A landscape that retains a strong rural character. The development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site would not affect the rural character of the area. As noted in the 2002 LDA study the outer Green Belt plays a lesser role in contributing to the distinctiveness of Cambridge and its setting. Land of a similar nature and appearance that plays a comparable role to the setting of Cambridge continues to an undefined extent beyond the Green Belt boundary. 2.35 It is considered that the harm to the Green Belt arising from the development of the Land at Ely Road, Milton site would be extremely limited. It is therefore appropriate for the land to be removed from the Green Belt, in order to deliver development in a sustainable location.

Yes

Cam Conservators strongly supports a Green Belt Review to be undertaken to assess the possibility of removing land from the Green Belt where sustainable development could be located. The release of sites from the Green Belt will unlock the potential for sustainable sites such as ‘Land at Fen Road, Cambridge’.

Nothing chosen

2.17 The most sustainable location for development will inevitably be adjacent to existing development, and in particular, adjacent to Cambridge itself. This is where the majority of services and facilities are, along with public transport opportunities, employment and housing. In order to meet the target for net zero carbon by 2050, the most realistic option is for development to be delivered in locations that offer the most sustainable transport options. Given that the Green Belt closely wraps around the extent of Cambridge, in order to deliver sustainable development some Green Belt release will be necessary. 2.18 Furthermore, the Green Belt consumes the boundaries of many villages that surround Cambridge, which also acts to restrict growth in these locations. Many of these settlements are sustainable for further growth in their own right, as well as by reason of their proximity to Cambridge. 2.19 Implicit in the allocation of development sites in the Green Belt is therefore the need to review and amend the Green Belt boundary. The NPPF is clear that any alterations to Green Belt boundaries should be fully evidenced and justified through the preparation of a Local Plan (paragraph 136). When reviewing Green Belt boundaries the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account (paragraph 138). 2.20 Over the past 20 years there have been numerous reviews of the Green Belt, and the value of certain parts of it. It is considered that where areas of the Green Belt have been deemed to be of lesser value and importance, and where these sites are in sustainable locations, these should be those first considered for release and subsequent development. The land around Teversham is such an area, and therefore this supports the consideration of Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham for development. The development of the sports pitches and pavilion would not necessarily be inappropriate in the Green Belt (paragraph 145 of the NPPF). 2.21 The Inner Green Belt Boundary Study Review (Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Councils 2012) includes Plan 4: Areas of Significance of Development on Green Belt. This identifies the site as being within an area considered of low significance. Taking the Green Belt shown on this plan as a whole, the area ascribed the lowest significance (with two small exceptions) is that in the vicinity of this site. The Inner Green Belt Study Review 2012 Plan Extract 2.22 Specifically the site is within Sector 16 Area 2. The detailed assessment states that Sector 16 Area 2 is of: • low importance to setting; • low importance to character; • low importance to physical separation, distribution, setting, scale and character of Green Belt villages; and • low importance to the Green Belt. 2.23 Overall the conclusion from the Significance Matrix is that the significance of development on Green Belt is ‘low’. The only factor where anything other than ‘low’ was given in the detailed character area type assessment related to ‘importance to rural character’. 2.24 In contrast to the site, the majority of the areas assessed on the outskirts of Cambridge are considered very high significance. The only other areas with a similar level of significance are those off Worts Causeway which were released from the Green Belt and allocated for development in the recently adopted Local Plan. The site is therefore considered the most appropriate location for Green Belt release to deliver housing. 2.25 The Cambridge Inner Green Belt Boundary Study (LDA 2015) was undertaken to address concerns raised by the Local Plan Inspectors and some of the findings disagreed with those in the 2012 study. Detailed comments are not made on sub area 16.2 alone and almost all comments relate to Sector 16 as a whole. This has the effect of ascribing characteristics and making judgements of the wider area, which do not apply specifically to the proposed allocation site. 2.26 The 2015 report assesses each sector against 16 criteria which are stated as all being of equal important and each contributes to the performance of Green Belt purposes. Insofar as this site is concerned the assessment demonstrates: • It is too remote from the edge of the city to be adjacent to any characteristic approaches to the city; • It is too remote from the edge of the city to contribute to a human scale city; • There are no key views of the historic core or the majority of the city; • The urban structure of the city has little relationship to the area; and • There is a relative lack of string landscape structure. 2.27 The ‘positive features’ identified relate to the fact that the sector is in a predominately rural setting and that development would detract from this character. The overall conclusion is that it is unlikely development could be accommodated without causing harm to the setting of Teversham. However this assessment was based upon a very large scale sector as a whole and the site, the subject of these representations, has not been individually assessed. In this regard the site represents a very modest amount of development of only a very small percentage of the assessed sector. Furthermore the 2015 report does not provide any plans that demonstrate the significance of different parts of the Green Belt. The assessment is therefore overly generalised and cannot be afforded any significant weight in the appraisal of the potential of the proposal site for delivering sustainable residential development. 2.28 The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan states (paragraph 2.30) the established purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt are to:  Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre;  Maintain and enhance the quality of its setting; and  Prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city. 2.29 In conclusion, the site plays a very limited role in meeting Green Belt purposes. Dealing with each of the 3 purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt set out above: • Unique character of Cambridge – the site is within a part of the Cambridge Green Belt that The Inner Green Belt Boundary Study Review (Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Councils 2012) describes as an area considered of low significance. Therefore the site cannot be reasonably considered to form part of the unique character of the city; • Quality of setting of the city – the development of the site will have no impact on the quality of the setting of Cambridge, again, as it is considered of low significance to the Green Belt; and • Prevent communities from merging into one another – the provision of sports pitches will ensure that a gap is retained between existing developments. In any case, the developments both sides of the site are considered part of the same settlement, Teversham. 2.30 It is considered that the harm to the Green Belt arising from the development of the site would be very limited. This clearly demonstrates that it will be appropriate for some land to be removed from the Green Belt in order to deliver development in locations that are sustainable.

Yes

4.1 Yes - there is a compelling need for Greater Cambridge to initiate a review of the Cambridge Green Belt in order to meet the transformational level of housing delivery required to support the economic growth potential of Greater Cambridge (please see Housing Delivery Study prepared by Barton Willmore). Green Belt is a planning designation and not an environmental designation. Therefore, on balance, release from it, at least in part, provides an opportunity to facilitate sustainable development that can also enhance biodiversity. 4.2 Growth on the edge of the City, which provides residents and businesses with direct access to an extensive network of walking, cycling and public transport routes, has the immediate benefit of reducing travel distances, fostering sustainable travel patterns and promoting a change in behaviours for people to live and work sustainably. 4.3 This accords with Para. 138 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, which states that Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to reflect the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, as follows: “When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out 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.” 4.4 Green Belt is a planning designation and on balance release from it, at least in part, provides an opportunity to facilitate sustainable development. There is a compelling need for Greater Cambridge to initiate a review of the Cambridge Green Belt. 4.5 If land is to be released from the Green Belt, then it should be from areas of lowest sensitivity. The Councils 2012 Inner Green Belt Study provided an assessment of parcels of land to the east of Cherry Hinton. It showed that the majority of land to the east of Gazelle Way was to be of ‘low significance’ and was of the lowest significance of all the Green Belt around Cambridge. The proposed new mixed-use community at Land at Gazelle Way has been designed to contain new built development within those areas of low significance. 4.6 Furthermore, 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, such as: ● Retention of strategic green breaks between Teversham and Fulbourn. ● New structural landscaping and habitat creation to improve its environmental quality. ● New footpath to links into the surrounding Green Belt to promoting its accessibility.

Nothing chosen

8.1 The Local Plan should be focussed on providing sustainable development in the most appropriate locations. To prioritise the four big themes will result in some development impacts. 8.2 Notwithstanding the underlying purposes of the Green Belt (Para. 134 of the NPPF), where it can be demonstrated that appropriate development can be brought forward in the Green Belt, sites should be considered within the context of their individual circumstances. Applications should be considered in the contact of Para. 136 of the NPPF including an assessment as to whether it can be demonstrated that a proposed development would bring substantial benefits, outweighing the loss of Green Belt land and thereby demonstrate exceptional circumstances needed to justify Green Belt release. In accordance with Para. 138, Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to reflect the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. If the release of Green Belt can facilitate more sustainable patterns of development, particularly if the land has been previously developed or is well-served by public transport, there should be policy provision to allow for a consideration of this in order to determine Green Belt planning applications within the emerging Local Plan.

Yes

Yes. Land on the edge of existing settlements, including on the edge of the Rural Centres of Sawston and Great Shelford with Stapleford, provides an important opportunity for the Greater Cambridge Councils to plan for housing in a location which minimises travel distances and is supported by sustainable forms of transport. As well as having good access to the existing train stations at Shelford and Whittlesford Parkway and being served by bus services to Cambridge, both villages are proposed to be connected by the route of the Cambridge South East Transport - Better Public Transport Project. As part of the proposals, two stops for the public transport route will be located at Sawston and Shelford, linking the villages with Cambridge Biomedical Campus and a new travel hub near the A11/A1307/A505 which will have connections to the employment areas at the Babraham Research Campus and Granta Park. Removing land from the Green Belt in these villages will also enable the Councils to maximise the opportunity to direct growth to sustainable locations connected by this proposed transport route. The removal of land from the Green Belt will also serve to ensure the quantum of growth required is delivered across the authority. Previous Local Plans have removed land from the Green Belt and it is understood this land is either built out or committed and included in current supply. Having regard to the significant number of additional homes that are needed to support the growth of the local economy, it is highly unlikely that the emerging housing need can be entirely located on land either within existing settlements or on accessible land outside of the Green Belt. In considering Green Belt land for release consideration should be given to land east of Cambridge Road, Sawston and land east of Haverhill Road, Stapleford; both sites are immediately adjacent to highly sustainable settlements which are currently constrained by the Green Belt. The five defined purposes of the Green Belt are defined within paragraph 134 of the NPPF. As stated within the SHELAA submissions previously submitted for the sites, it is considered that these parcels do not serve the five purposes for the following reasons: a) Any development on the sites would not comprise sprawl from a large built-up area as it would be contained by clear defensible boundaries; b) Development would not result in neighbouring towns merging into one another as clear defensible boundaries will be present; c) Development on the site would only result in limited encroachment into the countryside and a carefully designed scheme would be able to ensure that any sense of encroachment is mitigated; d) The site does not help to preserve the setting and special character of a historic town; e) Analysis of the South Cambridgeshire Brownfield Land Register indicates that there is a limited amount of derelict and other urban land available for development. Therefore, greenfield land, such as the site subject to this submission, must come forward for development.

Nothing chosen

8.1 The Local Plan should be focussed on providing sustainable development in the most appropriate locations. To prioritise the four big themes will result in some development impacts. 8.2 Notwithstanding the underlying purposes of the Green Belt (Para. 134 of the NPPF), where it can be demonstrated that appropriate development can be brought forward in the Green Belt, sites should be considered within the context of their individual circumstances and their ability to maximise the opportunities to achieve sustainable development and underpin a sustainable spatial strategy. Proposals should be considered in the context of Para. 136 of the NPPF, including an assessment as to whether it can be demonstrated that a proposed development would bring benefits, outweighing the loss of Green Belt land and thereby demonstrate exceptional circumstances needed to justify Green Belt release. In accordance with Para. 138, Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to reflect the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. If the release of Green Belt can facilitate more sustainable patterns of development, then there should be a spatial strategy that allows for its release to be able to achieve a new way of planning if the four big themes are to truly shape the new Local Plan and not just repeat historic patterns that have led to the climate emergency. 8.3 A village such as Cottenham, a Rural Centre, is well placed to accommodate some new development, but it is curtailed by the Green Belt running right to its southern edge, preventing that land from contributing new homes in an established and sustainable village.

Nothing chosen

Q39: 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? It is known that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. The anticipated forthcoming Planning White Paper may make some changes to this situation with potentially some relaxation. However, until it is published, current national planning policy remains that the Green Belt serves five purposes: a. To check the unrestricted sprawl of built up areas; b. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Green Belt boundaries are established through Local Plans and should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. As part of the preparation of the currently adopted Local Plans, minimal changes to the Green Belt were proposed. These were limited to a number of small scale changes to allow the expansion of some existing urban extension allocations and a small number of new allocations. The new Local Plan should undertake a fundamental review of the entire Cambridge Green Belt to understand whether it still serves a relevant function in planning terms for the City, or is stifling sustainable development. Potentially, it is promoting unsustainable patterns of development which simply leapfrog the Green Belt and result in development in less sustainable locations, increasing the need to travel between Cambridge and outlying areas that as such, are less connected to public transport routes. The concept of Green Belt was introduced in 1955 and has remained relatively unchanged for some 65 years. At the time Green Belts were introduced, the need to promote sustainable development which meets today’s needs including housing, employment and environmental considerations were very different. Today’s issues of climate change, congestion, pollution, water security, food production and fuel poverty suggest that a more radical approach to planning policy is required. At the time the Green Belts were established, the tools available to planners were more limited and the ability to analyse opportunities and constraints and develop robust evidence and justification, were at best very basic. A blanket protection of large swathes of land was therefore considered appropriate. At the time the pressures for growth and essential need for development were considerably less than they are today. Greater Cambridge is an exceptional area, both in its contribution to the national economy and its international reputation. In order to sustain its natural growth in a sustainable way, a wholesale review of the Cambridge Green Belt should be undertaken. This should be a balanced review, not simply an assessment of the performance of various parcels of land against the purposes of Green Belt. It should be a challenging assessment balancing the scale of development required to support the growth necessary to deliver the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough vision of doubling the total economic output of the area over the next 25 years. To support this level of job growth around 2,900 homes will need to be built each year to deliver a total of 66,700 homes between 2017 – 2040. It is imperative both locally and at the national level that Cambridge maintains its international reputation and the blanket protection provided by existing outdated Green Belt policy only stifles sustainable growth. Cambridge as a city is exceptional and as such, a radical review of Green Belt policy is clearly justified to facilitate its growth. The tools available today to analyse and inform plan making decisions are highly sophisticated and should be used to undertake a challenging and balanced review of the existing Green Belt. In respect of our client’s sites at Park Farm paragraph 138 of the NPPF indicates: “…Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out 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.” NIAB Trusts’ extensive land holding at Park Farm would allow these objectives to be fulfilled. Public open space could be provided for the enjoyment of both new and existing residents through the development of my client’s sites. There is the opportunity expand the connectivity of the footway/cycleway network via the A14 bridge to Darwin Green, broadly in line with the aspirations of the Histon and Impington Neighbourhood Plan. It will be possible to deliver net biodiversity gains compared to the current agricultural use through the provision of green infrastructure, wildlife corridors and dedicated ecology areas which would also contribute to the big themes that are proposed to be included within the new Local Plan. We therefore conclude that the new local plan should take the opportunity to review the Green Belt boundaries around Park Farm and allocate these additional development sites. Summary of Comments: A radical review of the Cambridge green belt is required to facilitate growth within the Greater Cambridge area and sites need to be released.

Yes

Yes Trinity College Cambridge would suggest that in order to provide suitable space for the specific requirements of skilled manufacturing required to provide for the economic growth identified within the UK Industrial Strategy removing land for the Green Belt in sustainable locations is the only available option. Locating jobs close to existing communities will reduce travel distances and ensure walking and cycling become the obvious mobility choice. It will also reduce the infrastructure requirements particularly where high quality transport corridors are already in place or planned. Connectivity is at the heart of how Cambridge Science Park North will operate. Cambridge Science Park North is already a highly connected location on existing and planned public transport and cycle corridors. The park itself will use this opportunity to create a walking and cycling environment. Support is given to development around the edge of Cambridge within the currently defined Green Belt where exceptional circumstances exist. However – priority should be given to developing around the edge of Cambridge in the Green Belt along key public transport corridors. Trinity College Cambridge is committed to transforming a parcel of agricultural land adjacent to the Cambridge Science Park into a world-leading centre of excellence in skilled manufacturing and development. The site is strategically located in the north of Cambridge within 6km of circa 43,600 new homes planned by 2031. This includes: • Circa 10,000 homes within walking and cycling distance being promoted through the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan; • 6,500 new homes at Waterbeach connected via improved cycle access on Mere Way, and through the Waterbeach Transit Corridor; • 10,000 new homes at Northstowe already connected to Cambridge Science Park via the Guided Busway and integrated cycle routes. Branded Cambridge Science Park North, it will be an extension of, and benefit from the successful innovation eco-system of the globally renowned Science Park It will promote social inclusion by creating skilled, well paid jobs in local companies for people with no university education where they will work alongside graduates from Cambridge and other universities around the world. In addition to the Centre there will be nestled in 250acres of stunning parkland with recreational facilities open to local residents. It will be an early adopter of environmental initiatives including green transport, waste management, energy, ecology and smart buildings; it will also provide a test-bed for companies developing sustainable products and services in Cambridge and further afield. Through innovative design and actively supporting innovation in technological advancement the land would be working beyond net zero carbon. Actively supporting businesses working to develop practical solutions to address climate change. The land identified provides an opportunity to create a substantial (approximately 90 hectares) area of biodiversity improvement areas and new accessible green space. This is especially important in this location due to the proposed North East Cambridge HIF funded growth area and additional population being introduced to the area. There is an absolute need and there is no other option.

Nothing chosen

64. Whilst there are different advantages and challenges for each growth option as recognised by the consultation material, significant weight must be given to the NPPF in considering which growth options are appropriate to progress. The NPPF (paragraphs 133 and 136) is clear that great importance is attached to Green Belt and boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. 65. Paragraph 137 explicitly requires the strategic policy-making authority to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. Compliance with this process will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies. 66. Therefore, the onus is on the GC authority to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for growth have been exhausted before releasing Green Belt, regardless of the potential sustainability benefits of Green Belt locations. 67. Therefore, it is clear that edge of village locations outside of the Green Belt, such as Linton, which present a suitable, available and sustainable location for development must be given significant weight and consideration for allocation before any land can be released from Green Belt. 68. If further sites are required to meet growth needs once all edge of village and edge of Cambridge sites outside the Green Belt have been assessed and, where appropriate, allocated, then the Green Belt boundaries can then be changed and justified as necessary.

Nothing chosen

The release of some areas of non-performing or underperforming Green Belt around the more sustainable Green Belt settlements should be considered for non-strategic development through a full Green Belt Review. There are options available, including at Cambridge Road, Great Shelford, where land has been assessed as being capable of development without affecting the Green Belt function. The GCLP is the only tool that can assist local communities that are located in the Green Belt meet their Local Housing Needs and/or take advantage of the Localism Act and help direct Neighbourhood Plans. The strategic policies need to properly reflect the limitations that the Green Belt places upon existing settlements.

Yes

2.76 We agree that the potential to remove land from the Green Belt should be fully considered as part of the development options for Greater Cambridge. Our representations have demonstrated that Comberton is a highly sustainable option in terms of its proximity to Cambridge giving realistic options for cycling as an alternative to commuting by private car as well as benefiting from a regular bus service. 2.77 As one of the larger villages it also benefits from a good level of services and facilities, particularly education with a Sixth Form college, which are within easy walking and cycling distance from the site. Accordingly, there are good opportunities for shorter trips to be undertaken in a sustainable fashion. 2.78 We would, therefore, contend that Comberton is one of the most sustainable village locations within the Green Belt and the comprehensive opportunity including later living and community uses means the site is entirely suitable for removal from the Green Belt. 2.79 Looking more widely at the aspirations for the Local Plan, a key ambition is the transition to a net zero carbon society highlighted within the ’Welcome’ from Cllrs Hawkins and Thornburrow and forming a fundamental ambition as part of the four big themes under the climate change heading. In order to transition to a net zero carbon position, there needs to be a release of sites such as Comberton within the Green Belt in proximity to Cambridge that will allow residents to live sustainable lifestyles with realistic opportunities to commute by alternative methods to the private car, particularly where there is the provision of infrastructure such as the proposed Greenway. 2.80 In considering the removal of sites such as Comberton from the Green Belt, it is anticipated that a Green Belt assessment will be undertaken, against the five purposes. Although no formal assessment has been undertaken at this stage it is considered that the parcel or parcels of land forming the site would score poorly against Green Belt purposes. The site has development on both sides and a new strong and defendable Green Belt boundary could be secured through development that would endure beyond the plan period. 2.81 Accordingly, removal of the site from the Green Belt would do little harm in terms of ‘purpose a’ under paragraph 134 of the Framework to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Similarly, under purpose b it is anticipated the site also scores poorly in terms of preventing towns merging, whilst there is also limited encroachment into the countryside (purpose c). Under purpose d the site does not play a significant role in preserving the special character of historic towns and again the landscape proposals provide an opportunity to enhance a strong, defendable boundary when approaching Comberton from the north. Finally, under purpose e, “assisting in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land” it is acknowledged that the scale of growth required in this Plan exceeds that which can be met on brownfield sites alone and that some Green Belt release will be needed. We have also rehearsed above that removal of the sites from the Green Belt provides the best opportunity to meet the Council’s zero carbon aspirations in proximity to Cambridge.