Question 43. What do you think about densification?

No comment.

Densification of existing urban areas has many advantages as outlined in the consultation document; ● Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth; ● Provides for central, well-connected and vibrant development supporting a strong community and identity; ● Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change; ● Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability. 7.4 The principle of densification is supported. The NPPF confirms, at paragraph 118, that planning policies should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs” and “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings”. The NPPF continues, at paragraph 112, in advising that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account, inter alia, the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it. 7.5 As set out above, a combination of approaches for the spatial distribution of growth in the area is likely to be required. However, opportunities for densification of existing urban areas in locations well served by public transport should be maximised wherever possible. 7.6 104-112 Hills Road is in single ownership and provides an opportunity to meet an identified need for Grade A office space within the emerging CBD of the Station Road/ Hills Road area. The Site presents a significant opportunity for redevelopment whilst still being able to respond to local character and protect the historic environment. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan on this basis.

Southern & Regional Developments (Joscelyn) consider that although densification provides one sustainable route to achieving an increase in residential quantum it cannot be relied upon to deliver housing across the whole plan area or to safeguard greenfield land. It should be noted that although the National Planning Policy Framework supports efforts in improving the efficiency and use of land, this is recognised as posing practical challenges reducing the viability and deliverability of this approach. This includes complex ownership patterns within tight urban environments which results in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development larger in scale and bulk, which can impact on sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities here will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to the heritage setting. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density scheme as well as issues of viability given the high degree of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking increases in residential density could result in the introduction of significant population numbers and related impacts within a particular urban area. Although this intensification can support local services through enhancement of the customer base, it will also provide additional pressures upon infrastructure. Increases in density requires consideration of capacities of certain areas of infrastructure, including public transport provision, schools and clinical services. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. Summary of Comments: Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy.

8.3 While no single solution to development would deliver a sound Local Plan, the densification of Cambridge is considered to be a logical part of the solution when taking into account the potential economic growth raised by the CPIER report. 8.4 Paragraph 122 makes it clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land. Given the current and emerging local market conditions and its compact nature, as well as its capacity for future public transport infrastructure projects, it is considered that densification in Cambridge would be suitable.

Trinity College Cambridge fully supports the densification of appropriate uses. Indeed, in terms of sustainability this has to be considered as a first option. Cambridge Science Park has naturally densified over time and will continue to do so in future. However, certain types of development cannot be accommodated via densification. The type of skilled manufacturing and development proposed at Cambridge Science Park North by its nature requires low-density large-scale accommodation.

8.2 Densification of existing urban areas has many advantages as outlined in the consultation document; ● Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth; ● Living in central, well-connected and vibrant areas is important for many people; ● Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change; ● Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability. 8.3 The principle of densification is supported. The NPPF confirms, at paragraph 118, that planning policies should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs” and “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings”. The NPPF continues, at paragraph 112, in advising that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account, inter alia, the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it. 8.4 As set out above, a combination of approaches for the spatial distribution of growth in the area is likely to be required. However, opportunities for densification of existing urban areas in locations well served by public transport should be maximised wherever possible. 8.5 Land to the north of Station Road, Cambridge is in single ownership and provides an opportunity to meet an identified need for Grade A office space within a newly formed city quarter. The Site presents a significant opportunity for redevelopment whilst still being able to respond to local character and protect the historic environment. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan to achieve densification in a highly accessible location and to support an established high-tech cluster.

Densification can have a role to play in historic cities where there are non-conforming land uses, areas that would benefit from regeneration or inefficient uses of land where densities can be increased without creating poor quality environments. However, this should not be at the expense of health and well-being, ensuring access to green and open spaces that may otherwise exacerbate issues in a negative way. Specifically, the surrounding necklace villages have evolved and there may be very few windfall opportunities left where suitable land remains undeveloped and not already accounted for in existing Local Plans, as evidenced through the site assessments that informed the 2018 Local Plan. We do not consider densification to be a reliable source of land supply to meet identified development needs to 2040. In order for the larger villages to be sustained and thrive, some natural growth should be allowed to occur on edge sites where there are no opportunities for densification.

Southern & Regional Developments (Cottenham) consider that although densification provides one sustainable route to achieving an increase in residential quantum it cannot be relied upon to deliver housing across the whole plan area or to safeguard greenfield land. It should be noted that although the National Planning Policy Framework supports efforts in improving the efficiency and use of land, this is recognised as posing practical challenges reducing the viability and deliverability of this approach. This includes complex ownership patterns within tight urban environments which results in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development larger in scale and bulk, which can impact on sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities here will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to the heritage setting. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density scheme as well as issues of viability given the high degree of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking increases in residential density could result in the introduction of significant population numbers and related impacts within a particular urban area. Although this intensification can support local services thorugh enhancement of the customer base, it will also provide additional pressures upon infrastructure. Increases in density requires consideration of capacities of certain areas of infrastructure, including public transport provision, schools and clinical services. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy.

9.6.1 Gladman are supportive of the efficient use of land, as required by 117 of the NPPF (2019): “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.” 9.6.2 Notwithstanding this, it should be recognised that an approach seeking densification can only go so far and will not be a solution on its own, but rather as one element of a hybrid strategy. When looking at densification it is important to remember that proposals will still need to be brought forward at an appropriate density for the site and particular location, therefore a blanket approach is unlikely to be appropriate. 9.6.3 Paragraph 122 of the NPPF outlines things that should be taken into account when considering the density of development. Paragraph 123 goes on to state “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site…”

Southern & Regional Developments (Willingham have concerns regarding the densification of development and question whether it provides a sustainable route to achieving an increase in residential quantum without the loss of existing undeveloped or greenfield land. It should be noted that although the National Planning Policy Framework supports efforts in improving the efficiency and use of land, this can pose practical challenges which reduces the viability and deliverability of this approach. This includes resolving complex ownership patterns within tight urban environments, which results in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development that is larger in scale and bulk, which can have greater impact on local amenity and sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities here will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to the heritage setting. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density scheme as well as issues of viability given the high degree of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking increases in residential density will result in the introduction of significant population numbers within a particular urban area. This will support local services by way of enhancement of the customer base, but will also provide additional pressures to infrastructure. Increases in density requires consideration of capacities of certain areas of infrastructure, including public transport provision, schools and clinical services. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. Summary of Comments: Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy

It is considered that densification provides a sustainable route to achieving an increase in residential quantum without the loss of existing undeveloped or greenfield land. However, it should be noted that although the National Planning Policy Framework supports efforts in improving the efficiency and use of land, this can pose practical challenges which reduces the viability and deliverability of this approach. This includes complex ownership issues within tight urban environments which results in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent and viable scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development that is larger in scale and bulk, which can impact on sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities here will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to the heritage setting. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density schemes as well as issues of viability given the high quality of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking increases in residential density will result in the introduction of significant population numbers within a particular urban area. This will support local services by way of enhancement of the customer base, but will also provide additional pressures to infrastructure. Increases in density requires consideration of capacities of certain areas of infrastructure, including public transport provision, schools and clinical services. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. It is recommended that whilst increasing densities may be appropriate in some urban locations this approach may not work in the more rural parts of Greater Cambridge including some of the village locations and Greater Cambridge should look to provide a range of densities to suit more sensitive locations across the plan area. Summary of Comments: Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy

The Trust supports urban densification in principle, including increased density in planned new settlements where Garden City design principles are adopted and open spaces are protected. However, we would qualify that support in relation to the densification of the planned new town at Waterbeach where we have concerns about the potential impact of increased visitor numbers on designated features at Wicken Fen, and we welcome the inclusion of recreational activity at Wicken Fen in the HRA scoping report. See also our comments on Q 46.

• Densification has a useful role to play in the low density, mainly older, employment clusters where there is currently an excessive amount of surface car parking. CambridgePPF supports this. • Where entirely new neighbourhoods are created, we support a higher density of dwellings which through good design can be compatible with high quality communities. High density development may mean taller and larger buildings but these should be appropriate to their context and must take into account the historic setting of Cambridge, its villages and views. We do not support high rise building close to the city’s historic core nor emergent high-rise buildings scattered across the city. Cambridge has a sound Tall Buildings policy which should be enforced. • It is difficult to see how densification can play a significant role in existing residential areas without compromising the quality-of-life of residents and the character of local neighbourhoods. We are strongly against ‘garden grabbing’, and against the demolition of sound family homes and their replacement with blocks of flats.

This clearly has the potential for less land-take within the countryside, and has advantages with respect to climate change and net zero carbon. However, it will still be important to ensure residents of urban areas have easy and high quality access to green spaces and nature without which this approach would not be sustainable. If this approach resulted in a reduced percentage of undeveloped ground or tree cover, such as the loss of large gardens when they form part of the “urban forest”, it would not be sustainable.

The CPIER makes the issue with “densification” clearer as it is a proposal for the main urban area (i.e. Cambridge City) after comparisons with both Peterborough and Oxford. Of course, it would be inappropriate for the villages, creating as it would an increase in the imbalance of dormitory villages serving the jobs rich urban centre with the increased transport infrastructure and carbon imbalance. We do note that we see many properties in our community being extended (typically from 3 bed to 4/5 bed) and this is changing the housing stock in the opposite direction to the increasing need for accommodating the now more common small family/single person units. Densification would presumably reduce the scope for this gradual creep of the housing stock away from the demand.

• “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.

1.53 Densification can work well in urban areas but in the villages the focus should be on extending settlement boundaries to accommodate new homes where the necessary infrastructure to accommodate them is already in place, or can easily be enhanced. Our clients’ site offers the opportunity for the sensitive extension of Comberton towards the well-defined boundary of Branch Road and should be seen as an area where further housing growth can be accommodated.

1.51 Densification can work well in urban areas but in the villages the focus should be on extending existing, successful development sites where the necessary infrastructure to accommodate new homes is already in place, or can easily be enhanced. Our client’s site at Bennell Farm is an excellent example of such a development and should be seen as an area where further housing growth can be accommodated.

Densification has its place. However, density is often defined in numerical terms rather than character. Thus 4 flats or 4 large family homes on the same sized site will have a different impact on the density character of the site, despite being the same density numerically. Policies should therefore refer to consideration of the impact on character and appearance, amenity and highway safety rather than arbitrary numbers. Cramming villages with increasing densities of development threatens their rural nature, whereas development on the edges of villages can retain that village's character. Such developments are also able to be delivered quickly. A criteria-based policy involving judgement on matters of planning merit (rather than a tick-box exercise) would ensure compliance with NPPF paragraph 78 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 would also comply with the requirement of NPPF paragraph 117 regarding the effective use of land. Paragraph 188.a) of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including through mixed use schemes and taking opportunities to achieve net environmental gains – such as developments that would enable new habitat creation or improve public access to the countryside. Land at Park Street, Dry Drayton is one such location on the edge of a village, promoted by our clients for 30 dwellings. The Site Promotion Document submitted at the Call for Sites stage demonstrates that development on the edge of the village can be accommodated well in terms of the surrounding landscape, the wider spatial strategy and in contributing to the vitality of the village community by supporting the school population, bus service, facilities, etc. In particular the site is promoted with the inclusion of new public open space which is currently lacking in the village, and landscaping and ecological enhancements, facilitiating much needed net environmental gains as advoctaed by paragraph 118.a).

Not in favour of increasing densities or building on small plots or back gardens. Too many cramped dwellings do not make a good environment to live in.

Southern & Regional Developments (Swavesey) consider that although densification provides one sustainable route to achieving an increase in residential quantum it cannot be relied upon to deliver housing across the whole plan area or to safeguard greenfield land. It should be noted that although the National Planning Policy Framework supports efforts in improving the efficiency and use of land, this is recognised as posing practical challenges reducing the viability and deliverability of this approach. This includes complex ownership patterns within tight urban environments which results in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development larger in scale and bulk, which can impact on sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities here will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to the heritage setting. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density scheme as well as issues of viability given the high degree of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking increases in residential density could result in the introduction of significant population numbers and related impacts within a particular urban area. Although this intensification can support local services thorugh enhancement of the customer base, it will also provide additional pressures upon infrastructure. Increases in density requires consideration of capacities of certain areas of infrastructure, including public transport provision, schools and clinical services. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. Summary of Comments: Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy.

Densification can be useful in accommodating the required growth. That said, many of the sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study of Cambridge 2002 have since been developed and there are limited options for further densification within the City boundary. However, where there are opportunities for densification, this must be managed carefully in a way that seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment. We refer you to our publication, ‘Increasing residential density in historic environments’ which can be found here. This study explores the factors that can contribute to successfully delivering developments which increase residential density in historic environments. It uses a combination of literature review and case studies to provide a series of recommendations to support decision making. We also refer you to our earlier comments in relation to tall buildings where we advise on the need to refine the existing tall buildings policy to identify areas where taller buildings might be acceptable and those areas where they would not, through an evidence based approach to policy making. Whilst taller buildings may be appropriate in some areas, there is an on-going question of scale. It is important that densification, including tall buildings, respects and does not harm the historic environment. Finally, densification is particularly appropriate in the context of brownfield development. Whilst densification of some areas may be appropriate, it is important to protect and enhance open spaces within urban areas and villages as these open spaces can constitute an important aspect of the character of a place, may help protect the setting of heritage assets or even be a heritage asset in their own right. Open spaces can provide important green lungs and help in tackling climate change. And they may also serve as important recreation and leisure areas.

4.97 The principle of intensification is supported, however this must be tempered against the ability of the local infrastructure to cope with that new development. Moreover, siting substantial development within concentrated areas such as Cambridge may lead to increased pressure on the local infrastructure, especially the road network. 4.98 Dispersal of development around the main conurbation may assist in alleviating these pressures.

Marshall agree that this is a sustainable option, and that some growth should be provided through densification, but the opportunities to provide development that meets the housing and employment needs of the area and achieve the four Big Themes of the plan through densification alone are likely to be limited. Other alternative larger-scale developments would be required in addition to densification in order to provide the infrastructure and facilities to support the population of Greater Cambridge. We support the principle of increasing densities on new developments, including Cambridge East, to make best use of land in accessible locations.

European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) consider that densification can provide one option of boosting housing delivery by increasing in residential quantum without the loss of existing undeveloped or greenfield land. However, it should be noted that the support of the National Planning Policy Framework to improving the efficiency and use of land can pose practical challenges that reduce the extent of open space, landscaping and causes over-concentration of environmental and social. This also includes complex ownership patterns within tight urban environments that can result in difficulties in land assembly to implement a coherent scheme. Furthermore, actively increasing density results in the implementation of development larger in scale and bulk, which can impact on sensitive areas including the historical urban landscape of Cambridge city centre. As such, strategies to increase densities will need to be particularly sensitive and considerate to heritage settings. By doing so, this will impact on the practical considerations of delivering higher density schemes given the high degree of design that will be required to ensure that impacts to heritage setting are mitigated. Strategies seeking to increase residential density are likely to result in the introduction of significant population numbers within a particular urban area. This will support local services by way of enhancement of the customer base but will also provide additional pressures upon infrastructure and the local environment. Increases in density requires consideration of environmental and social capacities in relation to certain infrastructure; including public transport provision, schools and health services as well as utility services including water and sewage. Increases in population through the provision of enhanced density therefore need to be met with expansion of infrastructure and the service base that these provide. Summary of Comments: Densification can contribute towards achieving a high level of sustainable development, but should complement other elements of a spatial strategy.

Densification can give benefits such as ensuring the viability of shops and services. However, success is dependent upon design and up-keep and so the whole life cost needs to be factored in.

7.2 Densification of existing urban areas has many advantages as outlined in the consultation document; ● Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth; ● Living in central, well-connected and vibrant areas is important for many people; ● Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change; ● Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability. 7.3 The principle of densification is supported. The NPPF confirms, at paragraph 118, that planning policies should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs” and “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings”. The NPPF continues, at paragraph 112, in advising that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account, inter alia, the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it. 7.4 As set out above, a combination of approaches for the spatial distribution of growth in the area is likely to be required. However, opportunities for densification of existing urban areas in locations well served by public transport should be maximised wherever possible. 7.5 The redevelopment of Kett House and 10 Station Road provides an opportunity to meet an identified need for Grade A office space within a newly formed city quarter. The Site presents a significant opportunity for redevelopment whilst still being able to respond to local character and protect the historic environment. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan on this basis.

- Densification is allowing growth to continue in Cambridge. The increase in the number of 3 rather than 2 storey terrace housing over recent decades is noticeable as is the number of apartment blocks. The compact size of the City inside its surrounding Green Belt lends itself to densification with its attendant transport benefits. However, the LDP process might investigate the balance between inward migration to the GC area and relocation within the GC area to see if densification is associated with any particular group or age range or trends in HMA. - FDPC considered the original proposals for the Blue Lion site to be too dense.

8.2 Densification of existing urban areas has many advantages as outlined in the consultation document: ● Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth; ● Living in central, well-connected and vibrant areas is important for many people; ● Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change; ● Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability. 8.3 The principle of densification is supported. The NPPF confirms, at paragraph 118, that planning policies should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs” and “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings”. The NPPF continues, at paragraph 112, in advising that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account, inter alia, the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it. 8.4 As set out above, a combination of approaches for the spatial distribution of growth in the area is likely to be required. However, opportunities for densification of existing urban areas in locations well served by public transport should be maximised wherever possible. 8.5 The early commercial and residential phases identified provides an opportunity to meet an identified need for Build to Rent housing, retirement housing and commercial uses. The Site presents a significant opportunity for redevelopment whilst still being able to respond to local character. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan on this basis.

Densification can have a role to play in historic cities where there are non-conforming land uses, areas that would benefit from regeneration or inefficient uses of land where densities can be increased without creating poor quality environments. However, this should not be at the expense of health and well-being, ensuring access to green and open spaces that may otherwise exacerbate issues in a negative way. It goes against garden city principles that are shown to have beneficial impact on residents and local communities. Cambridge city and its villages have evolved and there may be very few windfall opportunities left where suitable land remains undeveloped and not already accounted for in existing Local Plans, as evidenced through the site assessments that informed the 2018 Local Plan. We do not consider this to be a reliable source of land supply to meet identified development needs to 2040.