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

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

The GCLP should not focus on a single strategy to deliver its development needs. The GCLP needs to include a range of strategies so it has the best chance of securing a mix of scale of different development to be able to deliver its housing and employment needs on the ground within the plan period. In ranking the options for Q42, our proposal is as follows: 1. Dispersal: New settlements 2. Dispersal: Villages 3. Public transport corridors 4. Edge of Cambridge: outside of green belt 5. Densification fo existing urban area 6. Edge of Cambridge: green belt In particular, we support the creation of new towns or villages which would be supported by the necessary infrastructure in a new location and, importantly, supported by new strategic transport information for ease of connectivity to Cambridge. As part of the strategy, the GCLP should also spread new homes and jobs out to the villages through new site allocations, utilising existing and adding new physical and social infrastructure into those villages.

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

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 Transport 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 Transport corridors 3. Densification of existing urban area 4. Edge of Cambridge green belt 5. Dispersal new settlements 6. Dispersal villages

No choices made

8.1 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. 8.2 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. 8.3 Given the scale of new housing required over the plan period, site selection will require a mix of locations, and a particular emphasis should be placed upon the likelihood of achieving truly sustainable development, and de-carbonisation. 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. 8.4 There will be a need for development in the villages. Such an approach follows guidance within paragraph 67 of the NPPF, which seeks planning policies to ‘identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability’. 8.5 Paragraph 68 of the NPPF highlights the benefits that small and medium sites can make in meeting housing requirements, particularly in the short term. The temptation will exist to focus development solely on large scale new settlements outside of the Green Belt, but until such time as such settlements have sufficient critical mass – i.e. in excess of 2,000 or more homes, they will only support very limited levels of employment. Prior to that they will only serve to create additional traffic, and demand for public transport for commuting into Cambridge. Further, these larger sites require significant amounts of upfront infrastructure to be provided, leading to significantly longer lead-in times for development as highlighted by the NLP ‘Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large Scale Housing Sites Deliver’ (November 2016). The lead in times for smaller and medium sites is significantly lower, and provision of these will be essential to ensure consistent delivery rates through the early years of the Plan period. 8.6 Such small and medium sized sites are appropriate for village expansion and can deliver in the early years of the plan. They play a key role in ensuring early delivery of market and affordable units and as a result assist in allowing authorities to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, which in the case of the Authorities has recently been measured at only 5.09 years.

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

No answer given

No choices made

Question 42. The current strategy focuses new development within Cambridge and then on the edge of Cambridge, at new settlements close to Cambridge, and at better served villages. It is proposed to add to this current development strategy. A key new site will be North East Cambridge with development contributing to the additional targets for the new Local Plan. Another potential major development site is Cambridge Airport. The location of further significant development is likely to be influenced by projects such as the Combined Authority’s CAM and the East West Rail project. Natural England believes that priority should be given to targeting growth in the most sustainable locations i.e. where impacts to the natural environment, through development and associated infrastructure, can be avoided and where maximum enhancements can be achieved by that development. The availability of existing infrastructure and services will be a key consideration. The Local Plan development strategy should be underpinned by up to date environmental evidence such as the mapping of ecological networks and enhancement opportunity areas currently being undertaken by the Councils for the green infrastructure and biodiversity evidence base. The assessment of existing and potential components of local ecological networks should inform the SA: application of the mitigation hierarchy will ensure development avoids adverse impact to the natural environment; development is instead focused on land of least environment value; and opportunity enhancement areas are linked for delivery through those developments. Natural England suggests that cross-cutting issues should be identified at this early stage. For example, transport infrastructure, water and sewerage, air quality, flood protection and recreation and leisure requirements can have potential implications for the natural environment and policies to deliver these requirements will need to ensure its protection and enhancement. Key issues for Greater Cambridge’s natural environment include pressure on water resources, flood management, recreational pressure & deficits in accessible GI, air quality and climate change. The effects of large scale housing development on the existing green infrastructure network, through recreational pressure and disturbance, is a significant issue. Avoiding impacts by locating development away from more sensitive designated sites and habitat is critical. However, the scale of proposed growth requires additional measures to mitigate residual impacts; buffering and extending these sensitive areas to enhance their resilience to access pressure and creation of new alternative areas of accessible greenspace capable of meeting people’s needs and diverting pressure away from more sensitive areas. Our advice is that the location of new development should be informed through preparation of a map of the existing ecological network including designated sites, priority habitats and other important green spaces to identify key areas for protection and delivery of strategic / landscape-scale enhancements. This should be used to develop a strategy to inform the appropriate location of site allocations and to identify opportunities for delivery of biodiversity and green infrastructure enhancement projects through the Plan’s major development and biodiversity and green infrastructure policies. This could then be used to prepare a Green Infrastructure Strategy / SPD or an update to the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

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

2.1 The question requires the ranking of where new development should be sited in order of preference, with 1 being most preferred and 6 least preferred. 2.2 In order, my client’s preference is as follows; 1. Densification of existing urban areas; 2. Dispersal: Villages; 3. Edge of Cambridge – outside the Green Belt; 4. Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt; 5. Dispersal: new settlements; 6. Public Transport Corridors. 2.3 The above preference reflects the broad thrust of balancing the three objectives of the NPPF, set out in paragraph 8- the social, environmental and economic objectives. In order to make best use of urban land, where the majority of shops, services and employment opportunities are located, and to protect the Green Belt and countryside from inappropriate development as far as is possible, the priority should be to site new development within the main urban centre of Cambridge, but also to direct development to other villages and settlements. 2.4 This strategy will make effective and efficient use of land within the identified built up areas, abut will also support local shops and services. It will also reduce the need for travelling, particularly by private car, which will enable the net zero carbon target to be achieved. 2.5 By directing new development towards the existing urban areas as a first priority, at an appropriate density that respected and reflected local character, and did not place an undue burden on local infrastructure both within Cambridge city and within surrounding villages, it would demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed to allow for the limited release of Green Belt land in appropriate locations. Particularly in the villages, this would allow for new development to bring wider benefits to existing communities in terms of access to services and facilities. Allowing some jobs growth in and around villages can help sustain local services and sustain vibrant communities.

No choices made

Question 42: Where should we site new development? Q42 response: The "Big Themes" are noted and are considered important but as discussed elsewhere the extent of the floodplain, the capacity of and adverse impacts upon receiving watercourses, the provision of viable and adequately funded water level and flood risk management facilities are equally as important and must be considered as the Local Plan progresses.

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1 6 (1 - Most Preferred 6 - Least Preferred)We do not wish to comment on the ranking of options, as inevitably a blend of solutions will be required, which can only be determined through detailed analysis of those options and the benefits and impacts. For expansion of Addenbrooke’s and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, this is likely to require policies supporting densification of the existing campus (both built and subject to extant consents under CBC Phase 1 and 2), and a review of Green Belt land adjoining the campus for future expansion (see CUHP 2050 vision). For housing, this will almost certainly require a blended strategy, but with a need to consider Green Belt review to ensure housing is sited in the most sustainable locations, whilst protecting the most important Green Belt locations from development.

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1 6 (1 - Most Preferred 6 - Least Preferred) Q42 response: We do not wish to comment on the ranking of options, as inevitably a blend of solutions will be required, which can only be determined through detailed analysis of those options and the benefits and impacts. Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) in the medium to long term may require policies supporting densification of the existing campus (both built and subject to extant consents under CBC Phase 1 and 2) and/or would need to be proximate to the existing campus, which may require a further Green Belt review. We would recommend that housing appropriate to the needs of staff on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) is sited in accessible locations by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). A CBC Strategy Group with representation from all campus organisations has agreed to develop a Vision 2050 for the CBC. Subject to ratification by the CBC Strategy Group, this will be shared with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service by summer 2020 to define the extent, scale and location of development proposed throughout the timescale of the next Local Plan, and the anticipated number of jobs to be supported by the CBC by 2050. CUHP is committed to working with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to develop an appropriate policy framework to guide the future development of the CBC.

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

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

4.64 We believe there should be a change in focus of development if the councils are truly committed to safe and inclusive communities. We have ordered our preference for development below:

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

4.63 We believe there should be a change in focus of development if the councils are truly committed to safe and inclusive communities. We have ordered our preference for development below:

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

Densification of existing urban areas 6/ Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt3 / Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt 5/ Dispersal: New Settlements 1/ Dispersal: Villages 2/ Public Transport Corridors 4

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6 (1 Most Preferred 6-Least Preferred) 8.1 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 housing and employment development in the Greater Cambridge area.

No choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6 (1- Most Preferred 6- Least Preferred) Densification of existing urban areas, edge of Cambridge (outside the green belt), edge of Cambridge (green belt), dispersal (new settlements), dispersal (villages), public transport corridors. 3.61 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. 3.62 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 choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6 (1- Most Preferred 6- Least Preferred) Densification of existing urban areas, edge of Cambridge (outside the green belt), edge of Cambridge (green belt), dispersal (new settlements), dispersal (villages), public transport corridors. 3.61 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. 3.62 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 choices made

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6 (1 Most Preferred 6-Least Preferred) 49. No single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan or spatial strategy. A flexible and mixed approach is required to provide a robust supply of housing and to deliver new housing and employment development in the appropriate locations across the district. 50. However, as directed by the NPPF, the first approach should be to consider sites outside of the Green Belt. Therefore, sites within or well related to existing sustainable settlements outside the Green Belt provide the most logical place to consider for new development and to provide a varied spatial delivery of growth.

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

2.77 Given the quantum of development envisaged over the next two decades, we think there is probably an argument to consider all of the different approaches. However, we would add that strategies are likely to have a different level of growth associated with each. For instance, a greater proportion of growth should go into the Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt) than in Dispersal to Villages. 2.78 We generally support the existing sequential development strategy of both Local Plans, which seek to prioritise development in Cambridge, then on the edge of Cambridge, at New Settlements, Rural Centres, and then in Minor Rural Centres. 2.79 In terms of likely apportionment of new housing growth (i.e. beyond the 2018 Local Plan allocations) we would envisage the following sequence for Greater Cambridge: ▪ Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt) – for instance, North East Cambridge and Cambridge East ▪ Densification of existing urban areas – should continue to be prioritised in locational strategy terms, but potential questions on capacity for densification. Therefore, we think overall growth here is likely to be less than on the Edge of Cambridge (outside the Green Belt). ▪ Public Transport Corridors – if the significant planned investment in public transport from both the GCP and CPCA is delivered, along with that of East-West Rail, there is likely to be a very strong case for high levels of new housing and employment growth in those transport corridors. A New Settlement in the East- West Rail corridor in Greater Cambridge could be justified. ▪ Dispersal – New Settlements – see response to Public Transport Corridors. ▪ Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt – it is considered likely that some Green Belt release on the Edge of Cambridge (and indeed certain Rural Centres), will be required. ▪ Dispersal Villages – it is considered likely that this will only offer a smaller contribution in respect of overall housing growth, but villages might help Greater Cambridge meet its requirement for 10% of housing growth on smaller sites (those under 1ha). A lower level of growth could help villages grow in an organic way, helping to sustain/attract services, facilities and new small-scale employment. 2.80 In our view, NEC is the ideal opportunity to deliver significant housing and economic growth in a highly sustainable way. It is accessible to Cambridge North, the Busway, and potentially a Cambridge Autonomous Metro station, along with pedestrian and cycle connectivity via the Chisholm Trail and proposed Waterbeach Greenway. It is situated amongst a world-class knowledge-based cluster of Science, Innovation and Business, which will help to facilitate the opportunity of locating large numbers of new homes near an equally large number of new and existing skilled jobs. 2.81 The Site is one of the largest brownfield sites in the Greater Cambridge area, and would therefore offer the opportunity to minimise the need for an equivalent level of development on alternative greenfield/Green Belt sites. It is important that the GCLP recognises in its policy for NEC that major housing development is acceptable and that relocation of the CWWTP is required. This is particularly crucial in the event that GCLP is adopted in advance of the NEC AAP.

No choices made

Within this question the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service invites consultees to rank a series of options about where new development should be located within the spatial planning area of Greater Cambridge. It explores six choices: - densification of existing urban areas - edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt - edge of Cambridge: Green Belt - dispersal - new settlements - dispersal: villages - public transport corridors This is a rather blunt tool in which to assess the spatial approach and a flexible approach is likely to be more appropriate. The Cambridge & Peterborough Independent Economic Review, which was published in September 2018 concludes that 'Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is an area which already makes a huge contribution to the UK, and which holds great promise for the future. It also faces risks, which could bring the success to an end, and challenges realting to creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone'. The CPIER, which admittedly covers a wider geography than Greater Cambridge, advocated a 'blended spatial strategy' of four possible scenarios. The scenarios considered included: - densification - dispersal - fringe growth - transport corridors The housing market area for Greater Cambridge is a very challenging one. Affordable housing delivery is a significant problem with high levels of demand for affordable and key worker housing. The ageing population will also add significantly to the demand for specialist housing. Consequently, the new Plan needs to be very ambitious in terms housing delivery to ensure that there is a significant supply and mix of deliverable housing sites across the plan area, in excess of the levels of identified need, to boost delivery and help maintain competition in market and drive affordability. This will require a flexible spatial strategy which allocates varying sized sites in various locations across Greater Cambridge. The joint Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (August 2018) noted at para. 21: “The Plan proposes that development needs will be met at two new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield. We have some concerns regarding the challenges of delivering new development at Waterbeach and Bourn…” However, because these development sites were not required to deliver housing in the early part of the plan period, the Inspectors concluded that due to the plans commitment to an early review there would be an opportunity to review progress as part of the preparation of the new Joint Local Plan. We consider the Inspectors concerns to be justified and that the new Joint Plan should include a range of allocations and essentially more small and medium size sites throughout the area to ensure that rural settlements have the opportunity to grow and thrive in line with National Planning Policy advice. It is important to note that the Inspector for the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination wrote to the Council on the 10th January 2020 raising significant concerns in relation to the soundness of the plan. In particular, in respect of the overall spatial strategy which relies on the development of three Garden Communities. At para 31. of their letter they stated: “…the scale of the need for housing for the next plan period is currently unknown and uncertain. We are concerned that the Council’s chosen strategy (reliance on three Garden Communities) would mean that other sites in the district would not be developed or permitted for a significant period of time in the future. This would be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing towns and villages and result in a lack of housing choice in the market. It would also be difficult to accommodate changes in demand for certain types of development/services required over the very long period being committed to within the current strategy.” The Inspectors went on to state that the reliance on Garden Communities carried with it significant risks and a lack of flexibility. Furthermore, it would result in a worsening of affordability problem as it would delay delivery of housing to meet an identified need for a number of years. They concluded (Para. 114) that: “In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need 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 more affordable housing…” This reinforces the essential need for the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan to be based on a blended strategy which builds on the existing unban extensions already allocated around Cambridge and the strategic growth proposed at Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield through the allocation small and medium sized sites across the plan area. This is imperative to not only maintain supply and flexibility but to ensure that the rural areas can prosper and thrive and are not left behind. Fen Ditton is a village which is also on a public transport corridor, therefore we consider this to represent a suitable location for the type of development proposed, given the identified unmet need for specialist housing. Summary of Comments: A blended strategy is supported but specifically including development in villages.

No choices made

6.1 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires the planning system to actively manage patterns of growth and direct significant development to locations which are or can be made sustainable. Large, strategic sites located within transport corridors have huge potential to meet this objective, promoting highly sustainable development and a transition towards low/zero carbon lifestyles in line with the core objectives of Greater Cambridge. 6.2 The A428 corridor running due west of Cambridge to Cambourne and St Neots presents a broad transport corridor that is due to receive substantial investment in relation to East West rail (including new station at Cambourne) and the Cambridge Automated Metro. Both of these transport interventions will provide a good choice of sustainable transport modes within this growth corridor and are due to be constructed before 2030. As such, this area of Greater Cambridge presents a highly sustainable location for major, strategic Development.

No choices made

Within this question the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service invites consultees to rank a series of options about where new development should be located within the spatial planning area of Greater Cambridge. It explores six choices: - densification of existing urban areas - edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt - edge of Cambridge: Green Belt - dispersal - new settlements - dispersal: villages - public transport corridors This is a rather blunt tool in which to assess the spatial approach and a flexible approach is likely to be more appropriate. The Cambridge & Peterborough Independent Economic Review, which was published in September 2018 concludes that 'Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is an area which already makes a huge contribution to the UK, and which holds great promise for the future. It also faces risks, which could bring the success to an end, and challenges realting to creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone'. The CPIER, which admittedly covers a wider geography than Greater Cambridge, advocated a 'blended spatial strategy' of four possible scenarios. The scenarios considered included: - densification - dispersal - fringe growth - transport corridors The housing market area for Greater Cambridge is a very challenging one. Affordable housing delivery is a significant problem with high levels of demand for affordable and key worker housing. The ageing population will also add significantly to the demand for specialist housing. Consequently, the new plan needs to be very ambitious in terms housing delivery to ensure that there is a significant supply and mix of deliverable housing sites across the plan area, in excess of the levels of identified need, to boost delivery and help maintain competition in market and drive affordability. The joint Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (August 2018) noted at para. 21: “The Plan proposes that development needs will be met at two new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield. We have some concerns regarding the challenges of delivering new development at Waterbeach and Bourn…” However, because these development sites were not required to deliver housing in the early part of the plan period, the Inspectors concluded that due to the plans commitment to an early review there would be an opportunity to review progress as part of the preparation of the new joint local plan. We consider the Inspectors concerns to be justified and that the new plan should include a range of allocations and essentially more small and medium size sites throughout the area to ensure that rural settlements have the opportunity to grow and thrive in line with National Planning Policy advice. It is import to note that the Inspector for the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination wrote to the Council on the 10th January 2020 raising significant concerns in relation to the soundness of the plan. In particular, in respect of the overall spatial strategy which relies on the development of three Garden Communities. At para 31. of their letter they stated: “…the scale of the need for housing for the next plan period is currently unknown and uncertain. We are concerned that the Council’s chosen strategy (reliance on three Garden Communities) would mean that other sites in the district would not be developed or permitted for a significant period of time in the future. This would be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing towns and villages and result in a lack of housing choice in the market. It would also be difficult to accommodate changes in demand for certain types of development/services required over the very long period being committed to within the current strategy.” The Inspectors went on to state that the reliance on Garden Communities carried with it significant risks and a lack of flexibility. Furthermore, it would result in a worsening of affordability problem as it would delay delivery of housing to meet an identified need for a number of years. They concluded (Para. 114) that: “In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need 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 more affordable housing…” This reinforces the essential need for the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan to be based on a blended strategy which builds on the existing unban extensions already allocated around Cambridge and the strategic growth proposed at Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield through the allocation small and medium sized sites across the plan area. This is imperative to not only maintain supply and flexibility but to ensure that the rural areas can prosper and thrive and are not left behind. Summary of Comments: A blended strategy is supported but specifically including development in villages.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 A. A flexible and mixed approach is required to provide a robust supply of housing and no single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan. A combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth is necessary to deliver new housing and employment development in the appropriate locations across the district. B. However, the first approach should be to consider sites within or well related to existing sustainable settlements, outside of the Green Belt.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 4.7 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 underpinned with a focus on transport corridors and highly accessible areas. 4.8 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (date) states that “the east side of the city offers significant scope for housing and commercial development. Such development would have the advantage of being close to the principal centres of employment and the existing rail infrastructure whilst also opening up opportunities for new transport links to connect the main centres of employment more effectively.” [CPIER p42]. 4.9 Development on the edge of Cambridge, where it can be shown to be well-connected and to become an integral part of the City, can provide a great opportunity to change behaviours, encouraging more sustainable living to reduce impact on the climate.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 5.1 Axis recognise that no single growth option will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary. Although, any hybrid approach should have a primary focus on accessibility to public transport, employment and other daily needs. 5.2 There is an opportunity to create new villages within or near key transport corridors, with sufficient scale to incorporate new community infrastructure with long lasting benefits for new and existing residents. 5.3 Station Fields is uniquely located within a cluster of existing villages. The Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy (2019) recognises the need to ensure that villages remain vibrant and sustainable, with homes built close to places of work, with good transport links and access to services and facilities. This aligns with the NPPF which states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 46. No single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan or spatial strategy. A flexible and mixed approach is required to provide a robust supply of housing and to deliver new housing and employment development in the appropriate locations across the district. 47. However, as directed by the NPPF, the first approach should be to consider sites outside of the Green Belt. Therefore, sites within or well related to existing sustainable settlements outside the Green Belt provide the most logical place to consider for new development and to provide a varied spatial delivery of growth. The response to Question 40 sets out why Cambourne is considered to be the most appropriate location for future large-scale growth.