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

No choices made

Response to Question 42 Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 8.5 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. 8.6 To contribute to this overall strategy, it will be necessary to expand some of the existing villages in the district, such as Papworth, which is also located near to a public transport corridor that is to see significant infrastructure investment. Papworth is an appropriate location for a village extension, to maximise opportunities for residents to access local services and sustainable transport routes. Papworth is well located to promote sustainable travel modes and reduce the need to travel by car for whole journeys.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

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. The villages where EDBF is promoting sites could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submissions.

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. Linton is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submission.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 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 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. Foxton is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submission.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 Development should be located in sustainable locations and in locations where there are sector specific locational requirements, for example, the AgriTech sector. Any policy relating to the location of new development needs to be flexible to identify developments in locations not identified within the development plan, where very specific circumstances and needs apply.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 7.6 It is recognised that no single solution will deliver a sound Local Plan; rather, a combination of approaches to the distribution of spatial growth will be necessary to establish the appropriate locations of new housing and employment development in the district.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 7.9 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 district. Page 29 7.10 Land to the south of Station Road, Harston is considered to be an appropriate location for development, to maximise opportunities for residents to access local services and sustainable transport routes. Allocating this site will result a moderate extension of the village settlement boundary. Harston is located in the A10 corridor which is well served by trains and buses. The site is 3km from Foxton train station offering services to Cambridge (and beyond) and London. The proximity of this transport interchange makes it readily accessible by active modes of travel, particularly cycling and the site is therefore well located to promote sustainable travel modes and reduce the need to travel by car.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 Pigeon considers that the Local Plan should provide a balanced strategy towards the location of new development that incorporates elements of all these options to ensure that a range of sites are provided to meet different needs and provide choice and competition in the market. Densification will be an important component but its scope to meet housing needs is limited by the sensitive landscape setting and historic character of the City. Further distribution should be influenced more by the sensitivity of the site and sustainable access and transport choices than proximity to Cambridge. Much greater capacity for sustainable development will be released in existing villages by the strategy towards growth and transport corridors from and into Cambridge City.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 2.52. 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. 2.53. It is crucial that the emerging Local Plan does not limit development at villages in such a way that they stagnate. Development is often critical to continued viability of villages and maintenance of existing services and incorporation of new open space and play facilities to the benefit of new and existing residents. 2.54. 'Land south of High Street' is a site which represents an opportunity for sustainable expansion of Hauxton, immediately adjacent to existing housing and Hauxton Primary School. The site is also well related to existing public transport links, including Shelford Railway Station and bus stops connected by bus routes into the city centre. The documents appended to these representations identify how development could be successfully accommodated at the site following its release from the Green Belt. 2.55. In addition to the existing site context, it is worth considering the potential of the site in the context of emerging strategic public transport schemes. In respect of 'East-West Rail', Hauxton is located within the preferred route area for the new rail line connection between Bedford and Shelford Rail Station. Most recently 'Hauxton Park and Ride' is identified as part of the indicative 'Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro' network route with connections to the new Cambridge South Rail Station. 2.56. We welcome further opportunity for engagement in the Local Plan making process to highlight the potential for sustainable residential development at 'Land south of High Street, Hauxton'.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 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

Response to Question 42 We consider that new development should be located strategically within the District, on sites that are considered to be both sustainable and suitable. Therefore, we feel as though these options should not be ranked by those most and least preferred and should be considered on the basis of their location and sustainability merits. Fundamentally, new development should aim to address problems within the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City areas, such as reducing congestion and traffic within and around Cambridge City Centre. It is not considered that further major allocations within and on the edge of Cambridge City will address congestion. It is considered that growth should be also focused along key transport corridors and within villages that have a train station or are along The Busway and are situated outside of the Green Belt.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 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 (CPIER), which was published in September 2018. Within the document, it 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 relating 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 It concluded that 'some densification, particularly in Cambridge, is needed, though this should happen away from the historic centre, and more on the edges, as and where new development sites come forward. There should be some scope for expanding development around the city boundary, but intelligently planned transport links will be needed to avoid worsening of congestion. In Cambridge itself there are limits to development, and it is inevitable that much of the additional new growth will need to take place in new of expanded settlements that are well connected to Cambridge via high-quality public transport. 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'. My client's site at land north-east of Bourn is a very sustainable location, which is consistent with the conclusion of the CPIER. The site is well-related to the centre of Cambourne , which benefits from a high quality bus service and the site is also adjacent to the Cambridge to Newmarket railway line, where land has been safeguarded to provide for a new railway station should it be required in the future.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 1. Dispersal: Villages 2. Dispersal: New Settlements 3. Public Transport Corridor 4. Densification of existing urban areas 5. Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt 6. Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt Thakeham considers the most appropriate siting of new development to be a flexible approach comprising the top three approaches identified above, including dispersal across the District with a focus on extensions to existing villages, which the NPPF also states are the best way to achieve supply of large numbers of new homes (Paragraph 74), as well as through Dispersal: New Settlements and Public Transport Corridors. Please refer to the appended Vision Document titled 'Land east of Long Road, Comberton' produced by Thakeham

No choices made

Response to Question 42 It is considered that the siting of new development should follow the Dispersal: Villages / Public Transport Corridors. Both Sawston and Great Shelford with Stapleford have historically been unable to grow due to their location within the Green Belt. To ensure that the settlements continue to thrive and the services and facilities within them remain viable, it is important that new development is directed towards them. The CLA’s paper Strong Foundations: Sustainable Villages – Making Communities Fit for the Future (2018) 7 outlines the negative impacts faced where tight planning rules preclude the growth of villages. It states that where villages are unable to grow and have development restricted, they end up in a “cycle of decline”. This is likely to be the case in areas of high house prices, as younger people are forced to move away to secure affordable housing. Without suitable growth communities are likely to age, with associated social economic issues. To ensure balanced, healthy and vibrant communities, growth must be allowed. This however will require a review of the Green Belt as part of the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan The Cambridge South East Transport - Better Public Transport Project creates an entirely new opportunity to direct growth to already sustainable, but what will be even more sustainable locations as a result of the new public transport route. The sites east of Cambridge Road, Sawston and east of Haverhill Road, Stapleford are both located in close proximity to the proposed stops for the transport route (including a stop proposed within the Stapleford site itself).

No choices made

Response to Question 42 The Local Plan should include new development in those villages like Comberton with a good range of facilities, services, and good and improving accessibility.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 7.4.1 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 accessible areas.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 There are limited opportunities and significant 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; 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 residential development at the Mill Lane Site in Sawston would be consistent with both of these approaches.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 It is not a question of ranking these options individually. It is inevitable that no one option will deliver a sound spatial strategy and coherent Local Plan. The end solution is likely to be a mix of some of these spatial options, depending on land availability; the influence of planned and committed infrastructure projects; market choice; avoiding market saturation; maintaining pace of delivery etc. We consider there will need to be a mix of site sizes that combine to (at least) maintain the required annual housing levels and to deliver the overall housing trajectory throughout the lifetime of the plan. For these reasons we consider the priority should be given to new settlements along public transport corridors. Densification should not be prioritised but will be a factor to consider what land remains available within Cambridge City which is then judged against its current contribution to the physical and social environments versus its appropriateness for development. The release of further Green Belt land to deliver strategic-scale growth is required to be considered after other options have been fully explored by national planning policy guidance and cannot therefore be an assumed strategy at the outset. A balanced distribution of growth would also include locating some proportional growth to the villages, to enhance the sustainability of the rural area. It is possible to create a sustainable growth plan by locating some of the total growth to the larger more sustainable villages. Given the fact that there are over 100 villages across South Cambridgeshire, with several settlements having a high level of supporting infrastructure including secondary schools and good access to retail centres and employment areas, their relative self-containment can support a higher percentage of growth.

No choices made

8.7 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 district. Land at Capital Park is considered to be an appropriate location for development, to maximise opportunities for residents to access local services and sustainable transport routes. Allocating this site will result in a moderate extension of the settlement boundary of Cambridge.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 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

Response to Question 42 7.1 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

Response to Question 42 9.10 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

European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) considers that no single development option for the new spatial strategy represents the most appropriate approach and engagement with multiple options provides the most sustainable strategy to ensure that adequate growth can be realised. In the first instance, 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, European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) own land south of Dry Drayton Road at Oakington that has preiously been identified through the SHLAA as suitable in accommodating up to 20 dwellings across an area of approximately 2hectares. It is considered that the scale of this promotion site would be appropriate to the size of the village, its facilities and the connections that it exhibits to Northstowe. The site's location on Dry Drayton Road, Oakington would establish a defensible and robust edge to the settlement through a revised development framework boundary, whilst its delivery would complement a comprehensive spatial strategy that would consider multiple avenues of achieving the requisite levels of development. It is recognised that the emerging spatial strategy of the new Local Plan will involve a number of strategic sites which will deliver a significant number of homes over the Plan period, such as Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town. However, the emerging spatial strategy must consider small to medium sized sites, such as that being promoted at Dry Drayton Road Oakington to deliver inestment in existing communities. Such sites would also be easily delivered and boot provision, supporting the maintenance of a robust housing supply on the basis that smaller sites are delivered by SME developers and demonstrate faster build-out times. 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. The most preferred option for the new Plan to explore in the first instance is to disperse development to the villages. 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

In order for the GCPS to plan at a scale necessary to generate investment for significant infrastructure and to meet the housing and employment needs of the area, it is Marshall's view that the new Local Plan should adopt a strategy that combines the different locations for focusing growth. This view aligns with the outcomes of the CPIER and its recommendation that the Combined Authority should adopt a 'blended spatial strategy' to growth. The CPIER states: "what is clear is that none of these approaches on their own are likely to work - there is a need for balance and flexibility to ensure the urban form best meets the needs of residents, businesses, and the environment". Densification of existing urban areas is a logical place for development and is likely to score highly in relation to sustainability. However, this option alone will be insufficient in terms of land capacity to accommodate the housing and employment needs for the area. As identified above, as part of a review of housing need and available / suitable land, it is likely that Green Belt land will need to be released on the edge of Cambridge and land to the east of the Airport is a primary candidate. Realistically, the edge of Cambridge options (both in and out of the Green Belt) are the only options likely to generate the quantity of land in sustainable locations that are suitable for development.

No choices made

This is an important document in the process leading to the eventual adoption of a Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In my view, the document was well set out and easy to follow. In particular I thought that the ‘What are the key issues’ sections helpful. There is one serious error in the document. In appendix 5 abut the sources of information, it states on page 99 that ‘the population of Greater Cambridge is expected to increase by around 267% between 2011 and 2031. This is obviously wrong, and the, presumably correct, increase quoted in Figure 3 on page 14 is 27.5%. In my view, the best parts of the document were the What are the key issues sections, which set out clearly the relevant issues that need to be considered for the various aspects of the Plan. However, in my view, there were a number of shortcomings in the overall document. The Plan Period I can understand the need to plan for a period of about 15 years from the date of adoption of the Plan, and therefore to plan for a period up to 2040 would seem appropriate. However, we live in a fast changing world. I appreciate that forecasting what will happen in the future is extremely difficult. Whilst there are various references in the document to potential or actual changes in behavior, for example, increasing internet shopping, more working from home, increasing self-build opportunities, and aspirations to change behavior, for example less use of the car, greater use of public transport, lower energy consumption, I felt there was insufficient consideration of these and other changes in behaviour in the document, and just how different life in the Greater Cambridge area might be by 2040. In particular I felt that there was little appreciation of the issue of future food security. The Big Themes I consider the four Big Themes appropriate as setting the context for the Plan, so that development in Greater Cambridge is sustainable and that we can pass on a suitable legacy to future generations. In my view, the Big Themes are mutually interdependent, not mutually exclusive, and therefore the question about ranking them in priority order is inappropriate: they all need to be considered and may have different weight in different circumstances. New homes On page 4 of the document, it states that ‘one big question affecting all these themes will be the number of jobs and homes to plan for’. The document then goes on to state that National Government’s standard method for calculating future housing growth gives a figure of around 41,000 new homes in the period 2017 – 2040 (page 4) , but that ‘there may be a case for 66,700 homes during this period.’ The document then goes on to suggest six possible options for where this growth might be. ‘While the Local Plan could involve some growth in these [six] areas, we want to know what you think’. (page 6) On page 75 the document goes on to state that ‘it is likely that the most suitable strategy for the next Local Plan will again involve a balance of elements, we would like to hear your views ion what that balance should be.’ I can understand why wanting to hear views on what the balance of elements should be is important, but there are some factors outside the Councils’ control and outside whatever people’s views are. For example, if Marshalls eventually decided not to move, and if the North East Cambridge site did not go ahead, then however much consultation responses indicated support for sites in Cambridge not in the Green Belt, there would appear to be no other possible sites. On the subject of Marshalls, their decision whether or not to move is an issue for the company. However, from an employment point of view, I would be very sorry to see Marshalls leave the city as the company provides a range of jobs that adds to the range of employment opportunities for the city and surrounding area. I would hope that there is clarity about Marshalls and also north East Cambridge before this Local Plan is submitted to national government as these two large sites could play an important role in future growth for housing and jobs. I would completely agree that no one of the six possible options is the answer in itself, and that a combination of various possible elements is the most appropriate way forward. For this reason I do not like question 42 which asks the six possible elements to be put in priority order. In my opinion, a much better way of asking for views about this issue would have been to ask (yes or no) whether each particular element should form part of the strategy for allocating areas for housing growth. Future jobs and housing growth Rightly or wrongly, a number of local resident have already got the impression that the scale of new housing growth will be 66,700 new homes in the period 2017-2040. The wording of question 32 gives such an impression. There are four possible responses: Yes, strongly agree Yes, somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree No, somewhat disagree There is no option ‘no, disagree strongly,’ There has been much comment locally and nationally about the future of the UK’s economy post-Brexit. The possible scenario of 66,700 in the period 2017-2040 is a striking statement in support of increased growth and development in Greater Cambridge post-Brexit. Is this realistic - one of the tests of soundness that will be applied to the Local Plan submission ? There is another question could whether a scenario of 66,700 new homes in the plan period 2017-2040 is realistic. The document states that the current rate of house building is 1,675 per year, and that a scenario of 66,700 new homes would require house building at the rate of 2,900 per year. Yet on page 62 of the consultation document, it stats that ‘our recent jobs growth has been faster than expected. As a result demand for new houses in this area has been exceptionally high and housebuilding has not kept up’. (my emphasis) If housebuilders at a time of exceptional demand have only built 1,675 house per year, how can we expect in years to come that the number of new homes built each year will nearly double ? The current rate of house building does not appear to be constrained by a lack of sites, since on age 60 the document states ‘during the next Local Plan period (proposed 2017-20400 these [that is, allocations in the 2018 Local Plans] and other sites that have planning permission, are likely t provide around 36,400 new homes’ The consultation document then goes on to state that ‘A further 9,660 houses on these sites may be built after 2040 but there are no policy constraints on them being built earlier if developers wish to do so.’ (my emphasis). Whatever the final number for new homes in the Local Plan in the period 2017-2040, a great deal will depend on the rate at which housebuilders actually construct new homes, an issue that would appear to be outside the councils’ control. Other significant issues I my view there should be a presumption in the new Local Plan that brownfield sites should be developed in preference to greenfield sites. Mush of the undeveloped land in the Greater Cambridge areas high quality agricultural land, and for food security reasons should remain in agricultural use. However, agricultural practices could be improved to support much greater biodiversity than at present. Electricity and water / waste water infrastructure is important and whatever level of future development is agreed, without this basic infrastructure future growth will be constrained. In general I do not support further land being taken from the Green Belt - the consultation document emphasizes the important role this plays in maintaining the special qualities of Cambridge. Nevertheless, constraining development in Cambridge means that house prices remain very high, and so high that home ownership is not possible for so many people. If the Marshalls site and the North East Cambridge site do not come forward in this Local Plan, then there is a case for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. The biggest challenge of all, in my view, relates to climate change. In order to address any consequences of climate change effectively, there will need to be considerable changes in people’s pattern of life. As the consultation document makes clear, ‘ in reality we can only absorb and offset a small amount of carbon dioxide’, so planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide, whilst it can be a visible expression of action, has only a limited role to play. More significant change is required. Changing human behavior is one of the most intractable problems to be faced. Sometimes, as in the introduction of charges for plastic bags, behavior can change in a relatively short period of time; in other cases change can be almost infinitesimally slow. The challenge to developing an effective and sustainable Local Plan will be the extent to which people are prepared to modify or change their behavior. On a separate note, I would like to add that I have seen the comments submitted by the Cam Valley Forum, and I support their serious concerns about the River Cam and its future. The following comment on page 34 of the consultation document is particularly relevant: ‘ … chalk streams .. have run very low in recent years, impacting on the wildlife that live there.’ I also support the statement on page 37 of the importance of ‘balancing public access to nature … with the need for some natural habitats to be undisturbed and wild.’

No choices made

Q42 response: Inevitably there will need to be a combination of approaches to the location of development. Broadly speaking, priority should be given to densification of existing urban areas and villages, in particular utilising brownfield sites where available and subject to the provisions set out below. Thereafter, it would be appropriate to use land on the edge of Cambridge outside of the Green Belt before considering a new settlement and development along public transport corridors. Careful consideration will be needed as to whether further review of the Green Belt is justified at the present time (as discussed above) but if it is then this will need to consider the purpose of the Green Belt in preserving the setting and special character of Cambridge.

No choices made

4.96 New development should be sited a) where there is available brownfield or previously developed land within Cambridge and surrounding villages; b) where availability of such land does not meet the needs of a particular development sector it is considered that sites along the major road network and at the edge or just outside of existing village boundaries should be considered.