Question 43. What do you think about densification?

The pressure on land remains high and the need to make the most efficient use of land within and adjoining the existing Campus is supported. CUH plans to bring forward a new children’s hospital, there are plans for a new cancer hospital and we have medium term plans to build a new hospital (Addenbrooke’s 3) on the CBC Phase 1 and Phase 2 land, which has received seed funding from central government. All of these works would see us densify the existing campus, over and above the existing built development at Addenbrooke’s and potentially intensifying activity for clinical uses on the CBC Phase 1 and Phase 2 land. We will wish to explore with planning and urban design teams how to achieve this, to facilitate major reinvestment in our hospital, and ensure that Local Plan policies provide a positive framework to bring forward these proposals and to secure the requisite funding from Government.

The pressure on land remains high and we support the need to make the most efficient use of land within and adjoining the existing Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). Any expansion to the CBC in the medium to long term may require policies supporting densification of the existing campus (both built and subject to extant consents under CBC Phase 1 and 2) and/or would need to be proximate to the existing campus, which may require a further Green Belt review. We would recommend that housing appropriate to the needs of staff on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) is sited in accessible locations by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). A CBC Strategy Group with representation from all campus organisations has agreed to develop a Vision 2050 for the CBC. Subject to ratification by the CBC Strategy Group, this will be shared with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service by summer 2020 to define the extent, scale and location of development proposed throughout the timescale of the next Local Plan, and the anticipated number of jobs to be supported by the CBC by 2050. CUHP is committed to working with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to develop an appropriate policy framework to guide the future development of the CBC.

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.

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 south of Bateman Street, 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 on this basis.

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.

4.65 The quality of the living environment is key to wellbeing. Whilst densification in itself is not an issue if carried out properly, this could have a significant impact on the heritage and the reasons why Cambridge has many special qualities as a city. In certain areas of the City, this may be appropriate, but it would need to be carefully controlled and with innovative design.

4.64 The quality of the living environment is key to wellbeing. Whilst densification in itself is not an issue if carried out properly, this could have a significant impact on the heritage and the reasons why Cambridge has many special qualities as a city. In certain areas of the City, this may be appropriate, but it would need to be carefully controlled and with innovative design.

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.

Bad idea in West Cambridge and North West Cambridge where great densification has been taken place and still further densification is proposed/planned for. Remaining open green space particularly protected open space or environmental or recreational value should be protected.

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 Travis Perkins is in single ownership and 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 and protect the historic environment. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan on this basis.

3.63 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.

3.63 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.

NPPF paragraphs 122 and 123 encourage making the 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. This is further supported by findings set out in the 2020 Housing Design Audit for England which identified a clear link between higher density housing schemes and better design stating: “Concerns expressed by local councillors that higher density developments are leading to lower quality outcomes seems not to be supported by the research. Indeed the opposite seems to be the case” (Housing Design Audit for England, P.79)

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

2.82 See response to Q.42.

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

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 Travis Perkins is in single ownership and 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 and protect the historic environment. The Site is proposed for allocation in the emerging Local Plan on this basis.

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 south of Bateman Street, 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 on this basis.

The first growth option presented above seeks to maximise development in the urban area and the villages inset from the Green Belt. As was demonstrated by the evidence prepared to support the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City adopted Local Plans, there is not sufficient land available to meet all the future needs of the areas within existing urban areas. It is clear, based on the Council’s own evidence base, that Option 1 alone will not deliver the level of housing required to meet the needs of the Greater Cambridge Area. Whilst the Council should be seeking to maximise opportunities for delivering housing within existing settlements this should be balanced against the need to protect the authorities existing employments sites and designated open spaces. For these reasons we do not consider that a strategy based solely on Option 1 (Densification of existing urban areas) would be consistent with paragraph 11 of National Planning Policy Framework.

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 mi nimal impact on the Green Belt.