Question 44. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge on land outside the Green Belt?

Very good, although would have to be assumed that no valuable habitat would be lost (even if it would be "replaced" with new habitat elsewhere).

We would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support development at suitable villages beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. That suggests development at those settlements which lie on the edge of the Green Belt (which still benefit in ‘market’ terms from proximity to Cambridge) such as Duxford, Cottenham, and Bar Hill for example.

It is not entirely clear what this question is aimed at. Any land outside of the Green Belt would inevitably be some distance from Cambridge with consequent travel implications. Therefore, we would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds, but we do support appropriate development in certain villages. Overall, we do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development on the fringe of Cambridge (within the current Green Belt – see below); and 2) Development at suitable villages i.e. those with an appropriate service base, or those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and railway stations and those in close proximity to Cambridge - e.g. Ickleton - 1.6km from Great Chesterford railway station and 1.2km from the Wellcome Genome Campus with circa 2,600 staff) 3) The likely housing requirements suggest that a development strategy involving both of these is likely to be needed.

Cambridge airport is a good site for development.

The only option appears to be the airport but this seems unavailable for many years. Whilst it would be sensible to safeguard it for future development sufficient sites elsewhere should also be identified.

Pushing development beyond the Green Belt without excellent sustainable transport will increase our carbon emissions due to increased car usage.

As in many previous questions: sustainable communities not dormitories or ribbon developments.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

I support developing the Cambridge Airport site.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

ok as long as you make sure there are green corridors, sustainable transport and wildlife areas

We would support development at suitable villages beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. Although, in terms of sustainability and climate change grounds sites closer to Cambridge should be considered.

We would support development at suitable villages or locations beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment or significant enhancements to public transport and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. Although, in terms of sustainability and climate change grounds sites closer to Cambridge should be considered.

Our comment is similar to Q43, i.e. potentially sustainable but unlikely to deliver the quantum of opportunities on its own. Should Cambridge Airport relocate and its land be released, this would offer up a significant development opportunity. However, if relocation were to happen, implementation it is likely to take a very long time before new homes and jobs could be delivered on the site. Even if this were to happen at some point, it is the College’s view there would still be a need for substantial other land releases in order to meet the combined authorities’ growing economic and housing needs up to 2040 and beyond. Whilst Duxford is not on the edge of Cambridge city centre ( outside the Green Belt) the proposed Duxford development area sits immediately adjacent to the existing village and is also outside the Green Belt. Therefore, many of the benefits of developing around the edge of Cambridge city centre would similarly apply to the expansion of Duxford village in terms of: • Making best use of and enhancing existing services and infrastructure • Access to public transport • College’s Land immediately available for development without the need for relocations • Existing like-minded businesses and skill bases in the area • Net additionality to biodiversity • Ability to positively impact on climate change mitigation • Ability to deliver a substantial number of new homes, jobs and positive economic impacts for the local and national economies.

It is not entirely clear what this question is aimed at. Any land outside of the Green Belt would inevitably be some distance from Cambridge with consequent travel implications. Therefore, we would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds, but we do support appropriate development in certain villages. Overall, we do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development on the fringe of Cambridge (within the current Green Belt – see below); 2) Development at suitable villages e.g. those with an appropriate service base, or those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in close proximity to Cambridge e.g. Balsham. 3) The likely housing requirements suggest that a development strategy involving both of these is likely to be needed.

It is not entirely clear what this question is aimed at. Any land outside of the Green We would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support development at suitable villages beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. That suggests development at those settlements which lie on the edge of the Green Belt (which still benefit in ‘market’ terms from proximity to Cambridge) such as Duxford, Cottenham, and Bar Hill for example.

Any land outside of the Green Belt would inevitably be some distance from Cambridge with consequent travel implications. Therefore, we would not support any form of new settlement beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development on the fringe of Cambridge (within the current Green Belt – see below); and 2) Development at suitable villages i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in close proximity to Cambridge - e.g. Great Abington.

This could be a good option if it is close enough to the centre of Cambridge and there is frequent reliable public transport on the doorstep. If it is allowed all round the Green Belt, there is a danger that it will end up with Cambridge having a circle of urban development all around it some of which is not sustainable and will generate more car journeys, traffic congestion and climate changing emissions.

We would support development at suitable villages or locations beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment or significant enhancements to public transport and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. Although, in terms of sustainability and climate change grounds sites closer to Cambridge should be considered.

This option seems to rely solely on the release of Cambridge Airport by Marshalls, which is the only non-Green Belt site of any significant size. Whilst the site is logical for development should it become available, no relocation plans or timescales have yet been made public, and it would not be prudent to rely solely on this option. Other non-Green Belt sites similarly would rely on the relocation of existing uses, which is not always appropriate or realistic, and can be complicated by ownership issues and contamination. Cambridgeshire County Council has promoted the redevelopment of the Trumpington Park and Ride site, which is in single ownership and available for redevelopment, should an alternative site for this facility be found. However, whilst it is a developed site, it is currently allocated as Green Belt.

We would support the expansion of the Northstowe on sustainability grounds. We also support development at suitable villages beyond the Green Belt i.e. those with an appropriate service base, those which benefit from existing/planned local employment and those in relatively close proximity to Cambridge. That suggests development at those settlements which lie on the edge of the Green Belt (which still benefit in ‘market’ terms from proximity to Cambridge) such as Longstanton for example.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

The merits of developing sites such as Cambridge Airport and Cambridge North as sustainable options are recognized. The location of new homes and jobs close to existing services and facilities available within the City would minimize the need for and length of journeys by residents and employees. It is likely to represent one of the most sustainable options for the Council and edge of City sites should therefore be considered very carefully. However, these particular sites require the relocation of existing uses and their development is likely to be complex and subject to significant lead-in times. Consequently, the Councils should be cautious with regard to the ability of these sites to deliver significant housing in the short to medium term at least and should not seek to place an over-reliance on them given the uncertainties associated with these sites which should be recognized as a longer-term contributor to housing supply as part of a balanced approach to allocations.

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

There are two potential large-scale development opportunities on the edge of Cambridge which are not within the Green Belt and where development is likely to commence during the plan period for emerging GCLP; Cambridge Northern Fringe East and Cambridge East. Cambridge Northern Fringe East is allocated in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 (Policy 15) and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018(Policy SS/4) for a mixed use development. Cambridge East is also allocated in both Local Plans (Policy 13 in Cambridge and Policy SS/3 in South Cambridgeshire) for residential development and as safeguarded land for future development beyond 2031. It is acknowledged that these sites involve the re-use of previously developed land. However, the redevelopment of these sites is complex and involves the relocation of the existing uses. It is considered that the delivery of development at these sites will need to be realistic, taking into account all of the challenges that need to be overcome prior to the commencement of development - see Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory Analysis (prepared by Bidwells on behalf of North BRLOG). It is also considered that the ability of these sites to deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing should also be assessed fully - see Greater Cambridge Housing Market Economics Analysis (prepared by Bidwells on behalf of North BRLOG). For example, it is noted that the Wing development at Cambridge East is required to provide 30% affordable housing, against a policy requirement for 40%. It is considered that, in order to improve housing affordability in Greater Cambridge, the emerging GCLP should allocate sites that can demonstrate that policy compliant levels of affordable housing can be delivered, and allocate additional sites to compensate for the under-delivery of affordable housing from some of the strategic sites.

Development of Cambridge Airport is supported. Development outside the green belt that would create a ring or arc of urban development in rural areas is not supported.