Question 43. What do you think about densification?

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

I think it should dangerous and bad for our healthy. It would make it harder for those living in central Cambridge to enjoy green spaces and see enough sky necessary for good mental health.

This is the preferred way to achieve any growth, as the infrastructure is already in place, provided the urban environment can sustain the growth in residents.

Pigeon support the principle of developing suitable, available sites within the urban area of Cambridge and larger villages. However, this must not be at the expense of the unique historic character and landscape setting of Cambridge and it is important that this character is effectively preserved. Whilst densification has an important role to play in meeting future needs, this role is nonetheless likely to be limited given the constrained supply of land and the need to maintain a supply of suitable employment sites within the City to ensure a balance between homes and jobs. Discouraging future occupiers from owning and using private cars depends on the success of other strategic policies to enhance and facilitate walking, cycling and rapid public transport within and into the City.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per NPPF. The Local Plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association is cautious about the principle of densification of existing urban areas. We can see that there may be benefits in some locations, as long as this does not undermine local communities or affect the setting of the city. The new developments in the Southern Fringe have included a mixture of densities and that balance has worked well. There have also been some examples of densification within the established parts of Trumpington and we are concerned that this can lead to the loss of homes which are in keeping with the character of a local area and does lead to the loss of gardens, to the detriment of residents and wildlife. We think that the Councils should continue to resist 'garden grabbing'.

• “Garden grabbing” and tall buildings are changing the character of our villages. By building on every piece of accessible land and allowing large blocks of three storeys or more, some parts of villages take on a suburban image. • In Fulbourn, the main road into the village from Cambridge has been spoilt by the construction of several, poorly-designed blocks of 3-storey flats with ill-formed roofs and large, glazed stairwells visible from the street. It is hoped that the Village Design Guide will prevent future such errors of judgement, if enough weight is given to their content.

I appreciate densification allows living near work, reduces need to travel by car, and other positive points. However I do not think that densification would suit the existing city of Cambridge given that it is not historically a particularly dense city. Also given the cost of homes in the centre of the city already being very high, I would assume that new properties would be equally high given all the facilities and transport on their doorstep so I do not see how it would help on the issue of giving more people access to live in the city.

If the growth in the local economy is centred on Cambridge and its University and life sciences establishments, it makes sense to have as much commercial and residential development there as is reasonably possible. Particularly as development can be tied into existing infrastructure, including transport links.

Agree up to a point but totally object to Cambridge becoming high rise tower block city. It's incongruous with it's historic City Centre. I repeat that I question the level of growth CPIER have recommended.

Densification of the existing urban areas is long overdue. The British predilection for detached housing in cities and towns is massively self-indulgent. In Europe, blocks of spacious and attractive apartments are common and these should be encouraged on the outskirts of traditional British construction (noted as no more than 4 storeys high, which was once scaleable by the fit without the use of lifts!)

We are unable to answer Q42 as it requires that the options are ranked. We do not considered that any one of these options in Q42 is likely to provide for the development needs of Greater Cambridge. Rather elements of each part of the hierarchy are likely to be required. Efficient use should be made of all areas for development, subject to design quality being maintained. Development should be located in areas where it can support maximum travel by non-car modes, close to jobs and series and along public transport corridors. That is the case whether they be urban extensions, new settlements or village growth. Some development in key village location will help support services and meet local affordable housing needs to support communities. Such an approach is not about “dispersal” it is about sporting local communities.

Good idea. We need lots of small houses and short travel distances.

The Local Plan should include proposals to increase the density of employment and housing development in selected areas. The University proposes densification on two parts of its estate: 1. West Cambridge employment densification - the University proposed an increase to the density of employment development at the West Cambridge Site through the most recent review of the Cambridge Local Plan. Policy 19 ‘West Cambridge Area of Major Change’ is supportive of the densification of development on the site. Outline planning permission is expected to be granted in 2020. The site will accommodate around 14,000 jobs on completion of development. 2. North West Cambridge (Eddington) housing densification - see the attached Appendix 1 for details. The densification of development at these two strategically important sites for the Local Plan would enable the advantages identified in the Issues and Options Report to be realised.

We suggest by focusing the spatial strategy towards densification (development of brownfield land and building taller buildings) will be challenging and expensive to deliver as a result of acquisition costs, remediation and/or higher than normal construction costs. Not only will this Option be expensive, but we also suggest it will create delays with delivery as discussions around land assembly can be prolonged. In terms of the high development costs, this will invariably impact the viability of development and as a consequence, will affect the provision of affordable housing. Thus, given the existing issues around affordability in the Greater Cambridge area, we suggest the Council adopts a sound and credible spatial development strategy focused towards the development of greenfield land (outside of the Green Belt), that provides a realistic prospect of achieving the 40% target of affordable housing and which can be delivered quickly.

Whilst this question relates to the question of densification of the urban area, it is relevant to the other spatial options too. NPPF paragraph 123 refers to sites making optimal use of the potential of each site, including those well served by public transport. Trumpington South provides the opportunity to deliver a dense, compact, highly accessible development with minimal impact on the Green Belt.

Likely to increase people's motivation to move out of Cambridge (and commute to work by car) as soon as their finances permit.

Well designed densification is very attractive and unlocks opportunities to develop public transportation that are made more difficult through dispersion. There is a case for greater densification within the development frameworks of our larger villages as an alternative to ever-increasing sprawl on the edge of our villages.

I'm in support of densification if it helps deliver '15-minute neighbourhoods' where as many services and facilities lie within an 15-minute walk or cycle ride. We urgently need to switch as many journeys as possible to walking, cycling and public transport and to efficiently manage energy, water and waste. Densification can help with this.

We think sensitive densification is fundamental to growth. This puts a particular emphasis on the following: 1. Promoting high quality design to create contextual and contemporary developments that enhance the historic context / character of the city. 2. Opportunities for inventive retrofits and the opportunities to re-imagine existing streets and spaces to create new opportunities that respond to changing needs (i.e. movement patterns).

Yes if its not via a series of separate small sites, see 41 above.

Densification requires the development of safe, integrated cycle routes, and public transit.

Densification within Cambridge is appropriate if handled sensitively (e.g. Montparnasse in Paris).

Agree with it when done sensitively and creatively. Lots of other cities and countries have flats which are very community and environment minded unlike Cambridge’s attempt at it kingsway flats.

I think it needs to be done carefully but can be successful. Using land as suggested above is a good idea.

Hard to achieve in areas already developed, but fine in principal as long as sufficient green open spaces retained.

A compact medieval city is by definition quite dense; further densification should therefore be carefully considered, though in the context of the Historical Strategy set out above.

In appropriate locations this would be acceptable. However factors such as biodiversity net gain will require a strategic approach in order to remove barriers.

You go to Upware it’s in the middle of nowhere surrounded by fields and you get the impression every square inch is gradually being developed it feels denser than London. I’m not overly convinced by densification or at least there should be a limit to it. If you choose to live in town then you know it’s dense if you live in the middle of nowhere part of the reason is to get space so don’t corrode that too far.

NPPF paragraphs 122 and 123 state that sites should make optimal use of its land in order to meet identified need for housing as much as possible. Therefore, the NPPF supports high density development, especially in highly accessible locations subject to good quality design. Increased residential densities should be supported in highly sustainable locations (e.g. by the Cambridge Train Station) such as the Clifton Road Area of Major Change. The increase in housing densities will be essential to enable the Council to achieve the level of housing growth predicted under this emerging Local Plan.