Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1 6 (1 - Most Preferred 6 - Least Preferred)

No choices made

The Marshall Group site, assuming they move before the next LP is ready.

Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages

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 options of focussing development in the Green Belt and along public transport corridors are preferred; the promoted development at land north of Common Lane in Sawston would be consistent with both of these approaches.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt

1.Densification of existing urban areas – this should be the highest priority although it is recognised that the housing numbers being considered within the Local Plan will require other sites to be located. In addition due to the recetn market conditions within Cambridge this densification has already occurred in many places within Cambridge. 2. Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt – Opportunities on the edge of Cambridge should be assessed for development. 3. Dispersal: New Settlements – these should be at locations where significant infrastructure is being created such as East – West rail and the expressway. They should also be of sufficient size to make services economically viable. 4. Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt – There should be a review of Green Belt opportunities with development targeted towards sustainable locations.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors

NOT SPECIFIED ANSWERS TO QUESTION 42. It is considered that in reality the development strategy for emerging GCLP will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options, including development at the more sustainable villages. The scale of development that occurs at individual villages will depend on the level of services and facilities. Orwell is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submission. It was acknowledged in the appeal decision for land at Hurdleditch Road, Orwell in 2017 (Ref. APP/W0530/W/16/3157596) that there was a reasonable level of facilities in the village and that residents could travel to by walking and cycling, but that residents would need to travel elsewhere for some of their needs.

No choices made

• 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.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

The Consultation explores 6 different locations where growth could be focused. These include the following: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt • Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt • Dispersal: New settlements • Dispersal: Villages • Public transport corridors Sustainable growth should be delivered in all of these locations. Many of the locations also overlap, for example, public transport corridors will also be likely on the edge of Cambridge and through villages, as well as in the Green Belt. It is however clear that there are limited opportunities for major growth on the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt, with the only significant site being Cambridge Airport. This is however a very strategic scale of growth and reliant on the relocation of the airport after 2030. Whilst densification of urban areas can provide for sustainable development, there will be a finite limit as to how much growth can be delivered in this way. In addition, property prices in the urban area of Cambridge do not provide for the full range of households and tenures that need to live in the area. As such it is important that development is delivered at the edge of the city, as well as within sustainable villages both within and adjoining the Greater Cambridge area, to ensure that a full variety of housing to meet local needs can be delivered.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

LIST NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE. We have promoted four locations – see above. We have also commented on the Options for Growth – see above also.

No choices made

Within cycling distance, with good cycling links, and good public transport.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

A combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth are considered likely to be necessary in order to allow for sufficient flexibility when considering the locations of new development in the Greater Cambridge area. 7.2 Development should absolutely be supported where it provides for the efficient reuse of previously developed sites that are well located in relation to existing centres and which have high levels of accessibility by public transport.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

NOT RESPONDED TO LIST ABOVE. 9.6 No single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary in order to establish the appropriate locations of new housing and employment development in the district. A hybrid approach will be required but should be underpinned by a focus on accessibility to public transport, employment and other daily needs. 9.7 It is considered that an element of village dispersal should form part of a hybrid spatial strategy. Whilst a village dispersal approach should consider villages from across the settlement hierarchy, it should seek to allocate sites for development at locations in villages which are or can be made sustainable. To contribute to this strategy, Melbourn, a Minor Rural Centre and the ninth most sustainable village in the District, is considered to be a sustainable location for future development given the range of services and facilities it contains and its accessibility to public transport, principally Meldreth Station.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

NONE SPECIFIED ABOVE Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (Grosvenor) to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options Consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Grosvenor Britain and Ireland (Grosvenor) have land interests at the Abbey Stadium home to Cambridge United Football Club and consequently it is entirely appropriate at this stage to raise a number of issues in response to particular questions posed within the consultation document. The decisions being taken by Councils as to where to build will depend upon many factors ranging from the availability of development sites through to the relocation of infrastructure both now and in the future. It is entirely likely that a range of development options and locations should be considered as part of any strategy to accommodate development and what will be key in this context is avoiding an over concentration of development in a specific area or an over-reliance on strategic sites. Consequently, a range of development sites within the Greater Cambridge area should form part of any development strategy. Such a strategy should, of course, commence with locating development in the most sustainable locations and in the context of the Greater Cambridge area this must be directed towards the existing urban area of Cambridge which possesses the necessary highest order of services and facilities to accommodate residents and employees and retains the retail and leisure characteristics for people living and working in the area. The urban area continues to evolve and change and in recent years we have seen significant new development in the city centre.. We have also seen a major expansion of the city to the Southern Fringe around excellent transport infrastructure and growth in the biomedical and research sectors. The increasing in height and the density of buildings does not necessarily mean a compromise on architectural quality nor the qualities of good urban design but in the circumstances where there is a key objective of ensuring that the climate change agenda forms a critical part of any new Local Plan, then the focus should be concentrated on making the best use of available sites in the most sustainable location e.g. the urban area. In this context, Grosvenor has made representations to the Call for Sites consultation period at the beginning of 2019 and put the case to the Councils for redevelopment of the Cambridge United Stadium site on Newmarket Road. The Councils will be aware that the Club has been actively looking at plans to redevelop its site for over 10 years at a time when there is a wide acknowledgment that we have an aging stadium nearing the end of its life and which is not appropriate for a club with ambitions to play at its current level let alone play in higher leagues. The freehold of the site is mostly in the ownership of Grosvenor who acquired the stadium in 2010 and who have been working jointly with the Club to assess potential for either developing the existing stadium while considering the options to relocate the stadium to an alternative site. The Football Club has made public its plans to construct a new stadium to the east of the city close to the Stow Cum-Quy. The Club is very clear that a new sustainable stadium, with the supporting sustainable transport infrastructure (the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro) will be the foundation on which to grow and develop both as a football club and a major contributor of social value to the communities of Greater Cambridge through the substantial work of its Community Trust. Such a facility could be designed and managed to be a multi-use cultural venue stitched into and part of the wider proposals for East Cambridge. A direct consequence of bringing forward a new stadium in this location is to free up the existing Abbey Stadium site for development and as stated above would clearly be a significant opportunity for the Councils to bring forward new residential development with ancillary community facilities in a highly sustainable location, for example with excellent links to the City Centre via the Chisholm trial. The opportunity to secure much needed affordable housing in the Abbey ward constructed in a modern contemporary way using all of the necessary sustainable methods of construction and techniques should be part of any new development plan. Initial feasibility and master planning studies indicate that a high quality development of approximately 340 homes with (40% or 136 affordable homes) could be accommodated within the 2.89ha site. It is the view of both Grosvenor and the Club that this is a key opportunity that should be taken and planned for in this local plan. If not then the alternative, a more piecemeal development of the existing site and ultimately a compromised approach would prevail, if there is a viable solution at all. To elaborate, the alternative approach is the circumstances where the redevelopment of the existing site is considered but which would include the retention of the Football Stadium as part of the redevelopment and which may mean the reorientation of the pitch and a stadium within the site and to afford the opportunity for new development alongside. Those preliminary considerations formed our client’s submission to the Call for Sites in 2019. Grosvenor, the Club and The Greater Cambridge Partnership jointly explored several opportunities for retention of the stadium, with supporting and enabling residential development. These options while technically feasible were limited in their ability to deliver policy affordable homes or attract funding for delivery. Further it is Grosvenor’s view that none of the options explored could deliver the same quality of output in placemaking or social and environment impact terms as the relocation of the club and wholesale redevelopment of the site to residential use. This new Local Plan provides a real opportunity for the Councils to create site specific policy for the Abbey Stadium site as part of any new Local Plan. The assessment of such matters will naturally have to consider those proposals for the relocation of the stadium to an alternative location to the east of the city as an option. To produce a plan without addressing such options is a lost opportunity, one that is likely to have a lasting impact of the communities of Greater Cambridge, and we would urge the Councils to engage in constructive dialogue with Grosvenor, the Club and other key stakeholders as soon as possible as part of the Local Plan process

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors

ANSWERS ABOVE NOT SPECIFIED 12.1 The Local Plan should be flexible and allow developments in sustainable locations to ensure there is a balance of homes and jobs in the right place. It is important to ensure that a range of small sites are allocated in the Local Plan to ensure that these can be delivered in the short to medium term. The Local Plan should not overly-rely on large strategic allocations which are complex to deliver and rely on costly infrastructure to proceed. This is evident in the recent Inspector's findings to the Uttlesford Local Plan (10 January 2020) which set out that the Council needs to "allocate more small and medium sized sites that could deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5 year HLS, until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of affordable housing." Similar thinking is necessary in the Greater Cambridge Plan to ensure that there is not a sole provision of large strategic sites but a range of options and sizes to ensure that there is flexibility in the strategy and that housing (both market and affordable) can be delivered immediately. By allowing development to be dispersed across the District on the edge of urban areas and in villages, this would help to achieve this flexibility. 12.2 Fowlmere is categorised as a Group Village in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Policy S/10) reflecting the settlement's access to facilities, which allows residents to carry out most daily activities. It is considered that further limited development will help to maintain these remaining services and amenities as well as providing affordable housing to meet local needs. 12.3 South Cambridgeshire has previously relied on strategic sites for housing delivery; challenges and subsequent delays that have arisen with such schemes have resulted in the shortfall observed. It is evident therefore that the allocation of smaller sites within the Local Plan, such as those within Group Villages will ensure a more robust delivery strategy for the district. 12.4 There is therefore an opportunity as part of the new joint Local Plan to allocate modest residential development at Long Lane, Fowlmere which will provide much needed market and affordable homes in this location; in accordance with paragraph 59 of the NPPF and the objective of significantly boosting housing supply. 12.5 In Greater Cambridge, housing is less affordable than the national average and is getting worse. As such, it is imperative that housing delivery is a priority for the Council in an attempt to ease the affordability pressures in the District. Development of this site will also widen the choice of different housing types in Fowlmere itself. 12.6 The development of the site will give rise to economic and social benefits. New residents will use the existing local community services, facilities, clubs and societies within the village. This will support the ongoing provision, vitality and viability of these services. As part of the development proposals, financial contributions could be made, if required, towards these local facilities including education, health and public transport provision to enhance these facilities further; in line with paragraph 78 of the NPPF and the intention of supporting local services through development in rural areas. 12.7 It is clear that the allocation of the site at Long Lane Fowlmere for residential development would positively contribute to the District’s housing supply and provide an array of potential economic and social benefits for the village community.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 Southern and Regional Developments (Joscelyn) consider that no single development option for the new spatial strategy represents the most appropriate approach and consideration with a range of options provides the most sustainable strategy to ensure that adequate growth can be realised. It is considered that developments directed towards the edges of villages is a suitable approach that will help identify a range of small to moderately sized sites which will be able to robustly contribute towards the objectively assessed housing need of the Local Plan area.. For example, the site under the control of Southern and Regional Developments(Joscelyn) at Kingfisher Way, Cottenham has been identified as a suitable site that can assist in meeting the development needs of the plan area. This site would robustly complement a wider spatial strategy that includes multiple avenues in achieving the requisite levels of development. Furthermore, small to moderate sites, such as that at Kingfisher Way, Cottenham, have widely recognised faster build-out rates than strategic sized allocations. The National Planning Policy Framework asserts that Plans need to identify a range of smaller sites to offset any possible delays that are often attracted to strategic developments and therefore the spatial strategy should reflect this by identifying small to medium sized sites towards the edges of sustainable villages in the Local Plan area. Delivery of such scaled sites will able to more appropriately support the maintenance of a robust housing supply, given that these sites present schemes that are less complex and more easily deliverable. Therefore, if circumstances arise which delay the delivery of the strategic sized sites in the Plan area, small and medium sized sites could be brought forward to overcome any possible adverse impacts to the housing trajectory. This would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework where it asserts that Plans need to identify a range of smaller sites to offset any possible delays that are often attracted to strategic developments. As a result, the spatial strategy should reflect this by identifying appropriate small to medium sized sites that are located towards the edges of sustainable villages in the Local Plan area. The most preferred option for the new Plan to explore in the first instance is to disperse development to the sustainable settlements, which includes villages such as Cottenham. However, it is maintained that this should not be the only option considered as part of a new comprehensive spatial strategy. The identification and allocation of new settlements can provide a robust element to a strategy which provides significant numbers of housing to a supply, as recognised at Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, over-emphasis on the delivery of strategic allocations to a housing supply opens the spatial strategy up to possible impacts to the established housing trajectory due to likely delays related to the complex delivery mechanisms of strategic allocations. Therefore, it is more appropriate for a spatial strategy to encompass multiple development and delivery options to ensure that the residential requirement is satisfied, and delivery is maintained consistently over the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: Dispersal of development to villages is the preferable option, but it must form part of a comprehensive strategy including other development options.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 6.18 The spatial strategy that will inform the emerging Greater Cambridge Plan must be realistic in ensuring that the housing requirement can be met on appropriate and deliverable sites across the area. As set out in the NPPF (paragraph 67), planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. 6.19 The Issues and Options consultation document presents a range of location options, as follows: • Densification of existing urban areas; • Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt; • Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt; • Dispersal: new settlements; • Dispersal: village; and • Public transport corridors. 6.20 Given the scale of new housing required over the plan period, site selection will require a mix of locations. No single option from the above list can provide the spatial strategy for the forthcoming plan period. For example, densification alone cannot accommodate the level of housing provision needed; some greenfield land will also be required.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 It is considered that in reality the development strategy for emerging GCLP will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options, including development at the more sustainable villages. The scale of development that occurs at individual villages will depend on the level of services and facilities. Swavesey is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submission The promoted site forms a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary of Swavesey, as it immediately adjoins that boundary and is located next to existing housing areas to the south and east of the site. The site is located within a relatively easy walking distance of many of the key services and facilities in the village, including the primary school and Village College, recreation ground and shops and services in the High Street. It is clear that the site is highly sustainable with excellent access to education, facilities and services within the village. It also enjoys excellent wider access to jobs, services and facilities within the village itself through non-car modes. Swavesey is identified under the current Local Plan as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ acknowledging that the village performs a key role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland, has access to the Guided Busway, and that the village has a greater level of services, facilities and employment than most other villages in the District, and should support further growth.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 There needs to be a balanced approach to the location for new development across Greater Cambridge to support the area a whole. Of the options presented at Fig 26 (page 81), none of the options should be pursued in isolation. Instead a blended option, favouring sustainable and accessible locations should be supported. Specifically, there is a great need for a marina within walking distance of Cambridge City Centre. Currently, moorings are provided in three locations, with a fourth known as Riverside, already providing problems through unauthorised moorings. Both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils recognise the need for a residential “live on board” facility. In the previous Cambridge City Local Plan (2006) the site was allocated for Off-River Moorings under allocation 3.01 and within the Cambridge City Local Plan (2018) policy 54: Residential Moorings specifically states the criteria required to be met for residential moorings. In addition, the policy references the allocation RM1 at Fen Road, which is being promoted as per question 2 above. Within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) the site is referenced in policy H/7: Residential Moorings.

Dispersal: Villages, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Densification of existing urban areas

Village growth is essential in the Greater Cambridge so that localised housing needs are met across the plan area and that the vitality and viability of villages, including local services can be secured. Importantly, villages, especially those which are situated away from the Green Belt are best placed to accommodate sites and that can be delivered quickly. As stated in paragraph 68 of the NPPF, small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. Nonetheless, I would stress, however, that any growth at villages should most appropriately be of scale that can bring upgrades to services and community facilities, including schools and healthcare. Residential development at Gamlingay would secure housing at Villages and Transport Corridors. Although new settlements can accommodate large residential growth, however as evidenced by development in Northstowe and Cambourne they can take a long time to deliver. It is important, therefore that growth in villages and public transport corridors should be implemented in a sustainable manner. In regard to residential development on the edge of Cambridge (outside Green Belt) and densification of existing urban areas, although these are sustainable areas, land is not readily available. This is especially with brownfield land as issues such as contamination could arise and delay development.

Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: Villages, Public Transport Corridors, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements

The above ranking considers that the densification of existing urban areas and edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt present opportunities for sustainable development, with a potential lesser impact as located outside of the Green Belt. It should however be questioned that solely focusing development to these locations as a strategy, will raise questions over the realistic delivery of the housing numbers required within the Greater Cambridge Area. We have ranked Dispersal: Villages as third on the list, as this option provides a credible and sustainable option that will assist with delivering housing across the area and through the new Local Plan period. There are many opportunities that exist with edge of village sites located outside of the Green Belt, such as the site south of Fowlmere, which will have lesser impact on the openness than sites located in the Green Belt and deliver much needed housing. Public transport corridors are ranked just below Dispersal: Villages. This form of development acknowledges the focus of development through the Oxford and Cambridge Arc, which the new Local Plan will assist with delivering and supporting over the Plan period. Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt and New Settlements are ranked lowest as this form of development will have most impact on openness within the protected areas of Green Belt around Cambridge and New Settlements will require the provision of a significant level of new infrastructure to support the development. The delivery of infrastructure projects is often subject to delays that can prevent development coming forward within a timely manner, impacting on delivering the Greater Cambridge housing targets.

No choices made

Q42 Response: Development site selection should aim to limit dispersal and focus development where infrastructure can be provided most effectively; for this reason, the National Trust considers urban densification and Garden City scale new settlements are generally preferable. See also our comments on Questions 43 and 50.

No choices made

Q42 response: • CambridgePPF believes that a ‘Development Sequence’ should be established and we suggest that the order of priority for development should be as follows: 1. brownfield sites 2. densification of employment sites within the city, like the Science Park 3. major new sites within the city boundary, like Cambridge Airport and North-East Cambridge 4. other sites in South Cambridgeshire outside the Green Belt that already have good public transport connections, including new settlements 5. villages that already have good services and which can accommodate a modest level of new building within the village framework 6. city fringe sites in the Green Belt – the option of last resort when the above options have been exhausted • Significant areas of Cambridge are currently wasted as surface car parks. At a time when efforts should be made to reduce car use and improve air quality, some of this land should be re-used for development – see our response to Q2

No choices made

Q42 Response: As the Wildlife Trust’s remit is nature conservation, it is not for us to rank the different development model patterns, as all could have significant adverse impacts on nature, depending on how they are done and the precise locations of new development. However, we can make high level observations on each of the respective approaches from a nature conservation (and climate change) perspective.

No choices made

Q42 Response: We are not going to rank options, only point out that 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. Furthermore, we note that location and compact development is only part of the story: to reduce car usage you cannot give away money, land and resources in ways that enable unnecessary usage of cars (Manville, 2017). “The first and most fundamental choice is the overall location of a development in relation to urban centres and transport corridors. Studies confirm the common-sense expectation that travel habits are strongly influenced by the type of transport corridor that is closest, and that developments situated adjacent to or within the nearest conurbation have lower car use.” (Taylor, 2011) “Location of new housing, with a focus on walking distance to major public transport links and existing urban centres, as well as ensuring easy access to public transport and cycle networks both existing and planned” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2015) “Given a mixed-use, compact land-use pattern, an integrated combination of high-quality public transport, walking, and cycling conditions can out-compete the car, gaining back some of the modal share they lost from 1960 to 1990.” (Buehler, 2017) Evidence for our response to Question 42. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi (2017). Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transport Reviews, 37:1, 4-28, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799 • Michael Manville (2017). Travel and the Built Environment: Time for Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83:1, 29-32, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1249508

No choices made

Q42 response: The phrase “we site” implies more control than is achievable. -We would all like new developments to align (in both time and place) to demand for local jobs and to satisfy the overall themes especially environmental. In practice the plan will include many sites, all selected by landowners/developers in the SHLAA process, and the timing will depend on the developers’ priorities. If the plan were not to list all the sites for the plan period on the same basis, but to have a phased start date for each and every site this might give some measure of control but that leaves the local authority with a target for house completions in each three year period vulnerable as they would have even less leverage over the developers.

No choices made

Q42 response: ECC recommends that the GCA consider how the future quantum of employment and economic growth will be accommodated. ECC is mindful of the aspirations for growth within the UK Innovation Corridor (in particular Harlow Gilston Garden Town) and recognises that it is going to be a challenge for Local Planning Authorities to ensure the delivery of adequate housing growth to meet increasing employment opportunities. ECC recommends that in analysing the spatial approach most applicable for GCA consideration should be given to the delivery of public transport that considers the needs of those who commute for employment to Cambridgeshire from Essex. Consideration should also be given to ensure that the quantum of growth can provide for adequate social and community infrastructure, in particular secondary education. ECC recommends that making best use of aggregate resources should be considered as a key issue when allocating land for future development. The NPPF refers to this practice within paragraphs 203 and 206. ECC also advises that it is important that consideration is given to the need to assess the practicality of prior extraction of minerals before non-mineral development sterilises the material. Mineral issues are best considered at the site allocation stage, this allows mineral extraction and the timescales to be phased with non-mineral development at the outset. In determining appropriate sites for future development, consideration should be given to Minerals and Waste safeguarded land and determine whether there are other locations with similar opportunities that may be more appropriate.

No choices made

1.51 Rather than ranking the development options our clients believe that the Councils should ensure consistent delivery across the plan period by avoiding an over concentration of development in a specific area or an over reliance on large strategic sites. Essentially, the Councils should not base their growth strategy on a single strategy. 1.52 Our clients believe that a significant element of the new homes needed to meet the needs of the Greater Cambridge area will need to be accommodated in the higher order settlements near to Cambridge, like Comberton. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan will need to release sites from the Green Belt to allow the most effective form of development to meet the predicted housing needs of the area.

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? • Use existing urban spaces as far as possible, building multi-storey flats, and repurposing unused buildings for housing. • Avoid Green Belt and green spaces!! • 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. • If it is not possible to produce a realistic Transport Assessment achieving that goal, then the site must be rejected. • It is important that sustainable transport is not only considered within the site but also the connections to the transport network and other sites. • Transport cannot be looked at in a silo. Transport, including cycling, is integral to planning of new developments and must be considered from the very start.

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? 2There needs to be a balanced approach to the location for new development, favouring the most sustainable locations, but also delivering some growth in the villages in order to support existing communities. The most sustainable location for new development is in the centre of Cambridge, on brownfield land. There are however limited opportunities for such development given the scarcity of suitable sites and the existence of constraints such as heritage factors. There may be some opportunity for further sustainable sites to deliver development on the edge of Cambridge, however, the scope for this is limited by Green Belt considerations and environmental constraints. An option that has substantial scope for delivering sustainable growth is locations that are accessible by good public transport, where existing communities and associated services and facilities already exist and where additional growth would provide opportunities to reduce out-commuting. Question 42 asks for a number of locational options to be ranked, but inevitably some sites will have benefits associated with more than one option. Whilst there is an option for ‘Dispersal: New Settlements’, there is no option for the expansion of existing settlements. The MGH proposition is not that North Cambourne is a new settlement; rather it is that North Cambourne is an extension to an existing large settlement. Expansion of an existing settlement of the scale and nature of Cambourne has important potential sustainable benefits including enhancing the choice and range of local services and facilities and thereby reducing the need to travel to surrounding locations to access those services and facilities. The North Cambourne option also offers the sustainability advantages arising from access to public transport options, including: - - East West Rail - Cambridge Autonomous Metro; and - existing bus services with the potential for local Park and Ride. The combination of new and planned public transport infrastructure at Cambourne, and the opportunities to increase self-containment for the existing town, make North Cambourne the most sustainable option for growth during the Plan period. MGH proposes a refinement to the development location options that introduces differentiation in the category of new settlements. The proposed refinement is to identify a preference for new settlements where hey represent an expansion of an existing community, either existing settlements e.g. Cambourne or other established settlements e.g. Waterbeach. This amendment to the sequence ensures account is taken of the availability of already established infrastructure and facilities in the existing neighbouring community and the advantage that this gives in terms of sustainability when compared with the creation of a wholly new and free-standing community.

Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Dispersal: Villages

Q42 - Where should we site new development? Lolworth Developments Ltd (LDL) has submitted a 100ha employment site proposal to the 'Call for Sites' consultation in March 2019. LDL has submitted further supporting evidence as to why the site is the best location to serve the area and the 'final mile' into Cambridge. See Strategic Case Report and Vision Document submitted under Q2. Given LDL's proposal for a large-scale 100ha logistics based employment development on the strategic highway network close to Cambridge, yet outside the green belt; in ranking the options for Q42 would be as follows: 1. Edge of Cambridge; outside of green belt 2. Public Transort corridors 3. Densification of existing urban area 4. Edge of Cambridge green belt 5. Dispersal new settlements 6. Dispersal villages Summary LDL's proposal for 100ha of logistics based employment development at Bar Hill for the 'last mile' in and out of Cambridge will deliver benefits which respond to the prioritised big themes set out on page 82 of 'The First Conversation' including climate change, biodiversity and green space, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs and infrastructure (see our Vision Document submitted to Q2 and supporting evidence). Given LDL's proposal for a large-scale 100ha logistics based employment development on the strategic highway network close to Cambridge, yet outside the green belt; in ranking the options for Q42 would be as follows: 1. Edge of Cambridge; outside of green belt 2. Public Transort corridors 3. Densification of existing urban area 4. Edge of Cambridge green belt 5. Dispersal new settlements 6. Dispersal villages Summary of Comments: Please see summary above.