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 2.38 The Issues and Options document provides 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 2.39 It is considered that growth should be delivered in all of these locations. Many of the locations overlap, for example, public transport corridors will also likely be on the edge of Cambridge and through villages, as well as in the Green Belt. It is however clear that there are very limited opportunities for growth on the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt, with the only site being Cambridge Airport. This is however a very strategic scale of site and conditional upon the relocation of the airport after 2030. 2.40 Whilst densification of urban areas can provide for sustainable development, there is 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 range of households 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 surrounding villages. This will ensure that a variety of housing can be delivered in order to meet local needs. 2.41 These representations have been clear in advocating new development in Milton. The village is considered to be a sustainable location for development and as such a degree of development should be sited there. The Land at Ely Road, Milton site would provide for an appropriate level of development that could incorporate residential, employment and generous amounts of public open space.

No choices made

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. Cottenham 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 76. 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. 77. 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.

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. It is therefore not considered necessary to rank the options in order of preference.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 2.33 The Issues and Options document provides 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 2.34 It is considered that growth should be delivered in all of these locations. Many of the locations overlap, for example, public transport corridors will also likely be on the edge of Cambridge and through villages, as well as in the Green Belt. It is however clear that there are very limited opportunities for growth on the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt, with the only site being Cambridge Airport. This is however a very strategic scale of site and reliant on the relocation of the airport after 2030. 2.35 Whilst densification of urban areas can provide for sustainable development, it is considered that 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 range of households and tenures that need to live in the area, and property sizes can be restricted to ensure dense developments. As such it is important that development is delivered at the edge of the city, as well as within surrounding villages, to ensure that a variety of housing to meet local needs can be delivered. 2.36 These representations have been clear in advocating new development in Teversham. The village is considered to be a sustainable location for development and as such a degree of development should be sited there. The Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham site would provide for an appropriate level of development that could incorporate residential, a village hall/sports pavilion, sports pitches and areas of open space. Furthermore, should the Cambridge Airport development come forward, this would certainly provide enhanced and more direct access into Cambridge from Teversham, which is immediately opposite to the east of Airport Way

No choices made

With regard to the specific requirements identified by TCC for the development of skilled manufacturing and development space to support the Cambridge economy this form of new development should be sited: On the Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt AND on Public Transport Corridors – both of these factors are of equal importance. Skilled manufacture and development operate from larger buildings and cannot readily operate from the stock of offices and laboratories available within the local market. Cambridge Science Park North will provide for the type of space that is being and has been lost from both the Cambridge area and the existing Cambridge Science Park itself due to increasing office and lab values and lost as a result of past and proposed to housing development and allocations. The type of accommodation required to support skilled manufacture and development is not being catered for in Cambridge. Trinity College see a great need to provide for this sector to bolster the Science and Technology cluster within Cambridge. The proposal is for high value/ low volume design and manufacturing of goods and products that are essential for UK export and manufacturing sectors as identified in the Governments Industrial Strategy. Close to Cambridge for clustering, and employers Global trend analysis shows that in order for these developments to be operating at their economic peak, they need to be physically located in close proximity to where the research and development is taking place. Cambridge Science Park North provides an opportunity for this locational advantage to be maximised via active and sustainable modes of transport. Evidence to date would suggest that establishing standalone sites further out of the City do not work, indeed if sites are not available the choice to locate to alternative premises offering research and development facilities linked to skilled manufacturing widens to wider Europe rather than just to alternative locations within the UK. If we do not provide these facilities in Cambridge, these companies may choose to locate operations outside of the UK altogether. For similar reasons dispersal of these types of employment land does not work and are likely to result in change of use applications in future.

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 8.4 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. In terms of providing employment opportunities. The Plan must provide flexibility for existing employment sites to grow, meaning small employment sites such as Grange Farm, which is located on the strategic transport corridor, should be allocated. 8.5 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.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 There are limited opportunities and constraints to development within the urban area of Cambridge, there are limited opportunities for development on the edge of Cambridge which are not in the Green Belt and those opportunities require the relocation of existing uses, and new settlements are complex and typically do not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The option of focussing development along public transport corridors, including within existing settlements which are well connected, is preferred. The promoted development at Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard would be consistent with this approach.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 8.2 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 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

Q42: Where should we site new development? Rank the options 1-6 – Most Preferred 6 – Least Preferred) 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 relating to creating an inclusive society where economic growth works for everyone'. 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 that 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. 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 Inspectors’ Report on the Examination of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (August 2018) noted at paragraph 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 sized 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 paragraph 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 Inspector 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 (Paragraph 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

8.7 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, places that offer a foundation for sustainable living and accessible areas. 8.8 It is considered that 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, Cottenham, a Rural Centre and the fifth most sustainable village in the District, is a sustainable location for future development given the significant range of services and facilities it contains.

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.

No choices made

Not Specified

No choices made

We consider 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. A hybrid approach will be required but should be underpinned by a focus on accessibility to public transport, employment and other daily needs. The most effective approach to delivering the levels of development required is to ensure a wide variety of sites are allocated both in terms of size and location. This will ensure the consistent delivery across the plan period by not concentrating all development in a specific area or resulting in an over reliance on large strategic sites. The level of development and job creation needed will require the creation of new communities, the most appropriate way of achieving this through a new community at Six Mile Bottom. In terms of plan making, Para. 74 of the NPPF (2019) states “The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities”.

No choices made

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. 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.

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

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

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.

No choices made

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

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

Given the scale of housing need in the City, a combination of spatial strategies will be needed to support the sustainable growth of Greater Cambridge. We consider the Councils should consider edge of Cambridge (Green Belt) as the number one option for growth, followed by transport corridors as a close second best option for growth, in order to provide the most sustainable options for managing growth. Placing homes close to jobs provides the best chance of people walking and cycling, then reducing in commuting, improving air quality and helping achieve net zero carbon targets. As was clear from the now adopted Local Plan hearings and Inspectors Report, reliance on the delivery of new settlements to accommodate a substantial level of the Councils’ current targets will not be sufficient. Sites which can be delivered quickly are as equally as important as the longer term ones if the Greater Cambridge area is to meet its housing need and not be susceptible to unplanned housing development. Trumpington South is in the control of Grosvenor and USS and therefore can be delivered swiftly.