Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1 6 (1 - Most Preferred 6 - Least Preferred)
Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements
There are limited opportunities and constraints to development within the urban area of Cambridge, there are limited opportunities for development on the edge of Cambridge which are not in the Green Belt and those opportunities require the relocation of existing uses, and new settlements are complex and typically do not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The option of focussing development along public transport corridors, including within existing settlements which are well connected, is preferred. The promoted development at Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard would be consistent with this approach.
No uploaded files for public display
Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: New Settlements, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: New Settlements, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
Challenge and LIMIT THE GROWTH - the Cambridge are is full. I dislike having to be forced to complete the ranking above. Densification without high rise buidings and taking away green spaces. Leave the green belt alone. Only build on brown sites. Create new settlements that have adequate local facilities with sustainable and easy access public transport links to the rest of the country.
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
LIMIT THE GROWTH to this area. Cambridge is Full. I object to being forced to rank the above statements to register my comment to this question.
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages
We agree with this statement from the CPIER Final Report (September 2018): "We conclude that a dispersal strategy, which seeks to relocate homes and businesses away from city centres is unlikely to be successful, as it is ‘agglomeration’ – the desire to be near other companies – that attracts companies to the area. Other options, such as densification, fringe growth, and transport corridors all have potential benefits, and should be pursued to an extent, though none should be taken to its extreme." The Local Plan has a critical role in promoting a sustainable spatial development strategy that should apply a sequential approach to housing and employment development, starting with development in Cambridge (through selective densification), at the edge of Cambridge (including further selective releases of Green Belt land) and along transport corridors, in order to: - support the agglomeration of knowledge intensive organisations; - benefit from higher levels of land value capture for investment in zero-carbon energy infrastructure, sustainable transport infrastructure, social infrastructure and net gain to natural capital; - reduce the need to travel; and - and to enable travel by sustainable modes (walking, cycling and public transport), helping to improve peoples’ health and wellbeing and to improve economic productivity.
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors
Huntingdonshire District Council does not wish to rank where new development should be sited but could not complete their response without doing so. Therefore, please ignore ranking of development options. The siting of new developments should reflect the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of reasonable alternatives in the first instance, this should include ‘in combination’ effects of the six options presented. Emphasis should be placed on co-location of new homes with major economic investment opportunities to assist in delivering the necessary homes to support Greater Cambridge’s ambitious economic aspirations of doubling GVA. It will be essential for Greater Cambridge to liaise carefully with adjoining local authorities through the duty to cooperate to minimise the negative impacts that might arise from substantial housing growth and additional travel demand whichever option or combination of options is adopted. Huntingdonshire District Council will be pleased to work with Greater Cambridge to explore the potential for developments which would support the greater viability of public transport corridors linking into Huntingdonshire.
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: New Settlements
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages, Dispersal: New Settlements, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: New Settlements, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages
Given the scale of housing need in the City, a combination of spatial strategies will be needed to support the sustainable growth of Greater Cambridge. We consider the Councils should consider edge of Cambridge (Green Belt) as the number one option for growth, followed by transport corridors as a close second best option for growth, in order to provide the most sustainable options for managing growth. Placing homes close to jobs provides the best chance of people walking and cycling, then reducing in commuting, improving air quality and helping achieve net zero carbon targets. As was clear from the now adopted Local Plan hearings and Inspectors Report, reliance on the delivery of new settlements to accommodate a substantial level of the Councils’ current targets will not be sufficient. Sites which can be delivered quickly are as equally as important as the longer term ones if the Greater Cambridge area is to meet its housing need and not be susceptible to unplanned housing development. Trumpington South is in the control of Grosvenor and USS and therefore can be delivered swiftly.
No uploaded files for public display
Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages
This needs to be considered alongside transportation infrastructure plans but the key is to reduce car dependency. Car dependency is climate crime but also creates inequality and reinforces socio economic differences.
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements
As a clarification; the top three (existing urban areas, edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt and public transport corridors - assuming that they are outside the Green Belt) are the strong preferences. The bottom three are less preferable As a comment; all sites should be considered on their individual merits and assessed against the overarching aspirations such as available transport infrastructure and jobs / employment
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Dispersal: New Settlements
Sites and developers should be chosen on their ability to satisfy sustainable transport goals and shift the overwhelming majority of everyday journeys out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. If a realistic Transport Assessment cannot achieve that goal then the site is not suitable for development.
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements
In order to provide the level of growth required, the GCLP will need to site new development across a wide range of locations and at a range of sizes. No one option will reliably deliver the growth required, a balanced approach will be required. Villages, especially those closer to Cambridge, outside of the Green Belt and on Sustainable transport corridors, will have a part to play in this. Linton is one such example.
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: New Settlements
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Dean & Dean to make representations to the current Issues and Options consultation stage of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Dean & Dean have land interests in and around the city and consequently feel it is important to make their necessary representations to guide and shape the future planning policies and proposals that will emerge with the new Local Plan covering both administrative area. It is the case that where development should go within the new Greater Cambridge area is a key theme for the Local Plan review. The benefit of a single Local Plan covering both administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City is that there should be greater flexibility across two areas for any chosen approach and the emergence of a vision which sets aside Local Government boundaries and political differences to ensure that there is a comprehensive planning strategy for the Greater Cambridge area. Certainly it has been the case that there has been a mix of adopted planning strategies for Local Plans for both local authorities over the last 30 years or so. The first Local Plans sought to stimulate growth particularly to the north of the County and to the west and to other more distant towns in particularly those towards the Fens. The intention was to provide a catalyst for growth and to stimulate investment in other more remote locations other than Cambridge. However those policies did not perform as well as anticipated having regard to the growing influence of Cambridge in terms of where people want to live and work, the values of land elsewhere and the increasing commuting patterns that emerged as a result, partly because of affordability and the lack of alternative modes of traffic other than the private motor car which pushed people further away from their place of work. The strategies of dispersal then gave way to a more sustainable approach of recognising that Cambridge would continue to be a focus for development and accordingly large strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge and within the Green Belt where removed from that policy designation and became the focus for a mix of development which continues to perform an important function in accommodating new growth. The strategic allocations now at Bourn Airfield, north of Waterbeach as well as future developments at Marshalls and at North-East Cambridge remain commitments on existing plans and there is no doubt that such areas will continue to accommodate growth over the next plan period up to 2040. The issue is of course what scale of development would be needed over and above these existing commitments. Indeed, there will no doubt be questions about the delivery of developments on such a scale and the need for smaller settlements to address their own local issues in terms of providing housing in the village and sustaining the very services and facilities that characterise those settlements. Recognising that there are a range of options that can form part of any development strategy it is our client’s view that a blended strategy which looks at all of the various options for accommodating growth in and around the City will be one that should emerge within the plan period. Clearly the use of brownfield sites in highly sustainable locations such as Cambridge City will remain the most sustainable locations for growth. However, there is clearly a finite number of sites that the City can bring forward to accommodate growth and thus any new strategy will need to look at new greenfield sites on the basis of a higher growth figure being identified within the Local Plan. As part of any strategy it will be necessary to review in a comprehensive manner the inner and outer boundaries of the Green Belt in the event that strategic land releases can come forward on the edge of the urban area. Whilst it is the case that some villages within the Green Belt may have potential for growth, it is those villages outside Green Belt that should also be a focus for new growth and on land which has little environment impact in the event of much new residential development needing to come forward. It is certainly the case that the villages around the City within South Cambridgeshire have played a very important role in accommodating new development and it is considered that they will continue to do so in the next plan period. Villages with a relatively level of good service and facility base should be considered for develop and in this context our clients have made representations at the relevant Call for Sites Consultation period back in 2019 to promote land on the south side of High Street, Balsham. This village lies beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt and has a good level of services and facilities which need sustaining. In the circumstances where new residential sites are needing to be found at a scale that are commensurate with village size and scale then our clients land interest in Balsham is entirely appropriate in such a context. Thus a strategy which necessarily has to look at the contribution that villages make to accommodating development within the Greater Cambridge area is vitally important and acknowledges the roles that such settlements play within the rural hinterland. It remains important for all of the villages within South Cambridgeshire to be “sustainable” and if this mean bringing forward new housing locations in settlements such a Balsham which provide new market and affordable housing as well as the potential to assisting in the retention and growth of local services and facilities then this must be considered a key part of a sustainability agenda for a new Local Plan.
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: Villages, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors
As alluded to in this Consultation Submission the most sustainable form of development is taking a proportional approach to housing allocations locating development to firstly meet the local housing need in existing communities and secondly where there is sufficient capacity of infrastructure. Additional demands can be met without unduly causing an impct for regional transport links of major reinforcement utility schemes. This principle is noted on the ranking where dispersal in Villages should be considered first. Since 1998 there has been a focus on brownfield sites for development with government policy aspiration has been to acheive a 60% supply from this resource. This is not finite and with the exception of land to be released by Government departments or singular opportunties such as Bourn or Marshalls airfields this has been exhausted where brownfield development are marginal in respect to viability or arguably not in appropriate urban locations. Whilst ranked 2nd the opportunities are depleting and therefore would not regard these locations as adequately fufilling the supply requirments. The third tier is for the ' Edge of Cambridge' but this strategy is in reality a combination of new settlements and consideration of public transport corridors. As such although the question has been responded to as required 3/5/6 are potentially the same strategy. Fourth is utilising Green Belt where the principles of the policy that was established at the time has changed and warrents a further review. Indeed Green Belt policy can have the effect of making the growth patterns less sustainable. Such is the case of the metropolitan green belt around London which has had the effect that by excluding development in and around the suburbs has led to reliance of longer travel to work distances and therefore less sustainable. Regading the new settlement/or along transport corridors if a future new proposition was required to meet the long term housing growth (even past the plan period) consideration could be giving to land around Duxford/M11 Junction 10. This location is next to a major transport corridor (M11) and one that requires improvement (A505). There are rail connections to Liverpool Street from Whittlesford. There are dispersed employment sites and research campus's further South towards Saffron Walden that require a large workforce where housing growth in this location could give that opportunity of homes where residents could access employment areas in non-vehicular modes of transport. These comments are not repeated for other questions with the exception of the preferred option being Dispersal: Villages (Q47.)
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
See previous comments • Large scale in new well located , highly green communities . • Small scale as rural exception sites on edge of well located sustainable established communities.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
Whilst traditionally the Greater Cambridge area has been an historic city surrounded by the Green Belt with some 101 surrounding villages and a number of market towns on its fringe, the pattern of development has changed more recently . Successive Local Plans and Structure Plans have seen strategic areas of Green Belt being built upon on the edge of Cambridge. That pattern is set to continue with the potential of Marshalls relocating to an alternative location from the east of Cambridge together with the future redevelopment of the Anglian Water Waste Water Treatment Works at North-East Cambridge. Development should continue to be considered on the edge of Cambridge not least because it is one of the most sustainable locations for new growth. If properly managed such growth can still enable the City to retain its historic urban environment and countryside setting. Any development strategy serving the Greater Cambridge area must also look at the sustainability credentials of larger villages within the plan area which have a suitable level of services and facilities as well as those settlements which have the potential (or are currently forming part) of the new sustainable transport corridors which feed in and out of the City. Cambridge will still be a significant magnet for many of College employees living in rural area and any strategy which ignores the importance of the villages and their potential for growth fails to understand the complexity and value of such locations as well as the aspirations of people who wish to live in those locations (and indeed those who are forced to move to those locations as a result of affordability). In summary, it is our view that a blended development strategy which looks at i) increasing densities on appropriates sites within the urban area, ii) extensions on the edge of Cambridge, iii) development on the edge of sustainable villages identified either by size and scale or by location within a transport corridor and iv) extensions to existing new settlements will serve the community best. It remains the case that no single element of the development strategy provides the answer to the location of new development - any strategy that is adopted must have different elements within it to secure the most appropriate sustainable pattern of development within the next plan period.
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: New Settlements, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages
Densification within the City and larger remaining sites The edge of the City beyond and within the green belt exceptionally. Possible new settlements if land available. New settlements along public transport corridors especially East West Rail corridor Villages based on sustainability and SCD Local Plan policy village policy included in new Local Plan. The Local Plan will need to use a mix of these locations in order to meet the level of need identified. Cambridge already has some (last remaining?) larger development sites for larger new communities within its boundary and at some point in the plan period will have reached the limit of densification whilst protecting the environment and providing for climate heating. The area where the Local Plan can have greater impact is to consider the edge of Cambridge at public transport nodes and on land outside of green belt and in Cambridge Green belt. The latter is difficult in planning terms, but sufficient land for development which makes good use of rail infrastructure could meet the exceptional circumstances test where evidenced and justified in the context of the strategic polices of the Local Plan . Outside the green belt the East West rail corridor could provide major locations for larger development and/or new settlements. Dispersal to villages with sufficient services and infrastructure should be in accordance with SCDC adopted policies on villages.
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements
Cycle infrastructure must be a priority when constructing public transit cooridoors, either by building space for dedicated cycle lanes, or by enabling cycles to be taken on trains and busses.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
New development should be focused on a. regeneration / intensification of sites within Cambridge b. development of integrated new towns on Brownfield sites already well-connected to key infrastructure to minimise travel. c. proportionate addition to a village (no more than +1% p.a. per site except where approved in a Neighbourhood Plan)
No uploaded files for public display
Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: New Settlements, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors
• Sites and developers should be chosen on their ability to satisfy sustainable transport goals and shift the overwhelming majority of everyday journeys out of cars and into walking, cycling and public transport. If a realistic Transport Assessment cannot achieve that goal then the site is not suitable for development. Yes – densification, edge of Cambridge outside the green belt No – greenbelt, new settlements, villages Maybe – transport corridors
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
Where it is least detrimental to environment, brownfield sites and densification.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
I have heard that the Marshalls land at the Cambridge airport is available and that the sewage works are going to be moved in the near future to allow further development there. These seem to be good locations.
No uploaded files for public display
Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas, Public Transport Corridors, Dispersal: Villages
1 Edge of Cambridge – Greenbelt – and move the green belt out. 2 Densification of existing urban sites 3 Public transport corridors 4 Disperal – growth of existing villages
No uploaded files for public display
Dispersal: New Settlements, Densification of existing urban areas, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display