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

• CambridgePPF would not object in principle to the development of Cambridge Airport and North East Cambridge if it meant that the green belt was protected, as per national planning policy. • There are very few other locations around the edge of Cambridge that are not in the Green Belt. Whether they are suitable for development will depend on the characteristics of each site.

There are clear sustainability advantages from a climate change and net zero carbon viewpoint of development being located closer to jobs and leisure opportunities. Some land on the edge of Cambridge has already been removed from the Green Belt such as Cambridge Airport in anticipation of future growth of the city so these are the obvious first areas to look at for future development. High quality strategic and local green infrastructure will be required both within the development but also beyond if the new developments are to be sustainable.

If done the priority must be to the south of Cambridge in order for the housing to serve the expansion of jobs (which we confidently assume will be larger than current projections given the accelerating pace of advances in this sector and new firms wishing to co-locate with leaders in their sector). Care must be taken that in so doing that the residents of the existing dwellings are not then placed more than the recommended 800 metres from green open space. Imperative that such housing development is close to jobs to cut down infrastructure and carbon costs.

• Whether sites on the edge of Cambridge, not in the Green Belt, are suitable for development must depend on an analysis of each potential site. Cambridge Airport, for example, if developed, must include a significant amount of space for parkland and large wilder, biodiverse areas. This is essential if the Local Plan themes of ‘climate change’ and ‘biodiversity and green spaces’ are to be more than just aspirations. The impact on nearby villages must also be fully considered. Fulbourn and its Fen Nature Reserve is only a ten minute drive from the airport site. There is the potential for an increase in the visitors (especially dog walkers) to the reserve for which its access, car parking and the site itself is ill-equipped. Commercial dog walkers can already sometimes be seen with numerous dogs, running free in the woodland and the meadows of the SSSI. • Therefore, the new Local Plan must also plan for other areas of natural landscape to be created away from the development site, but within easy reach, to spread the demand. This may well mean that agricultural land needs to be used for this purpose, and this cost must be recognised.

1.54 Given the extent of the Cambridge Green Belt the development of site outside it are inevitably too far out for most residents to cycle to jobs and facilities in Cambridge. Therefore, the development of these sites is reliant on public transport improvements, that require significant upfront costs and are not always delivered in line with new homes. 1.55 The implications in making such sites sustainable through the enhancement of public transport infrastructure often impacts negatively on the viability of developments, which inevitably reduces the percentage of affordable housing that they can deliver. This has already been seen with Cambourne West where a significant financial contribution towards the Cambourne to Cambridge public transport route resulted in a level of affordable housing being agreed below the policy requirement of 40%.

1.52 Given the extent of the Cambridge Green Belt the development of site outside it are inevitably too far out for most residents to cycle to jobs and facilities in Cambridge. Therefore, the development of these sites is reliant on public transport improvements, that require significant upfront costs and are not always delivered in line with new homes. 1.53 The implications in making such sites sustainable through the enhancement of public transport infrastructure often impacts negatively on the viability of developments, which inevitably reduces the percentage of affordable housing that they can deliver. This has already been seen with Cambourne West where a significant financial contribution towards the Cambourne to Cambridge public transport route resulted in a level of affordable housing being agreed below the policy requirement of 40%.

It’s the thin end of growing amorphous mass, not in favour.

Southern and Regional Developments (Swavesey) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport as inappropriate. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority, the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Furthermore, the Airport site is currently fully occupied by a thriving local business that supports the economic vibrancy of the location and provides employment. The occuption by a thriving local business that has been resident on the site for an estbalished period of time should not be ignored, particularly in respect of the ability of the business to successfully relocate and recreate the favourable business conditions that they have been in place. These consideration mean that this site opportunity is less likely to be available. Development of the Dairy Farm site could provide a significant boost in housing numbers on a site that would not harm the Green Belt, whilst there is no certainty attached to when the Cambridge Airport site will become available so it would not be appropriate for the site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan and not a component of the true spatial strategy to deliver housing for the identified need across the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

We assume this refers to land previously released from the Green Belt such as the land at Cambridge Airport. Given that this land has previously been identified for development then it would seem that development of these areas would be appropriate subject to suitable relocation of the airport to enable this land to be released for development. Again however, careful consideration will need to be given to the historic environment including the nearby conservation area at Teversham.

4.99 This approach is supported given the responses to the preceding questions. When considered against the context of the Brickyard Farm site, the adjacent services and the adjacent Buckingway Business Park provide a unique opportunity to deliver a combined employment led cluster that can be self-sufficient thus alleviating pressure on infrastructure and services in the wider area.

As identified through the CPIER, Cambridge East is the only side of the city that is not constrained and could accommodate significant levels of housing and employment growth, whilst still having the advantage of being close to the principal centres of employment and the existing rail infrastructure. There are no other sites with this scale of opportunity, that are released from the Green Belt and sustainably located so close to the city centre. The adoption of the Cambridge East AAP in 2008 confirmed and established the principle of development on this site; therefore, there is a strong case for prioritising development on the edge of Cambridge (outside of the Green Belt).

European Property Ventures(Cambridgeshire) consider the inclusion of the safeguarded site at Cambridge Airport is inappropriate within the emerging spatial strategy. Although it is acknowledged that the owners of the airport have indicated their intention to relocate to an alternative site in the future, as they are a third party unrelated and unconnected to the Local Planning Authority the availability of the site is not assured and beyond the control of the Council. As such, there is no guarantee that the site will be available for development towards the latter part of the new Plan period or beyond. Furthermore, the development of the airport site has also been assessed as harming the function of the Green Belt, which is not sutiably justified by the lack of certainty regarding the site's delivery and demonstrated contributed to the spatial strategy. Although development of the Cambridge Airport site could provide a significant boost in housing numbers, there is no certainty of when the site will become available and how it could contribut to the Plan's housing trajectory. Therefore reliance upon the airfield site does not provide a deliverable or roust spatial approach and would be unsound. It would not therefore be appropriate for the airfield site to be included in the spatial strategy or housing trajectory for the new Plan period. The Cambridge Airport site should remain a safeguarded site and should form part of the long term aspirational objectives of the Plan to 2050 and not a component of the true spatial strategy up to 2040. Summary of Comments: The site should remain safeguarded but not included in the spatial strategy given there is no certainty attached to its availability.

CPRE are less concerned about this providing proximity does not lead to denigration of the Green Belt. We have opposed several applications recently for this reason. We are concerned about future flood risk arising from climate change and damage to the character of Cambridge and its surroundings which exist in a very sensitive landscape.

- No such land should be developed unless it has good transport links. - No such land should be developed if it is providing significant environmental services.

Summary Wyton Airfield, in Huntingdonshire District Council, is not available for relocation of the current Cambridge Airport use. Full Crest Nicholson plc ‘CN’ wish to confirm their position regarding the redevelopment at Wyton Airfield, within Huntingdon District Council, in so far as it may relate to the emerging GCLP process. In CN’s capacity as the landowner’s contracted Development Manager, Masterplanner, and Lead Developer for Wyton Airfield, they remain fully committed to the delivery of a new mixed-use Garden Village community across the whole site, and have the contracted position to do so. Whilst business and commercial uses will form a significant part of this new community, they would like to confirm that the land will not be available for the current owners of Cambridge Airport to relocate their operation to, due to their requirement for an operational runway being incompatible with our Garden Village proposals.

The Issues and Options consultation highlights the fact that the only qualifying site is Cambridge Airport. The fact that it has already been removed from the Green Belt and is safeguarded for future development should be given due consideration. Realistic timescales for any relocation and redevelopment have to be understood and demonstrated to be achievable before this option can be considered further.

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 on the CBC Phase 1 and Phase 2 land, which has received seed funding from central government. All of these works will see us densify the existing campus (on land outside of the Green Belt), over and above the existing built development at Addenbrooke’s, whilst 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. This may also include health infrastructure required to support the work of the CBC, particularly its hospitals. 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.

Summary: Wyton Airfield in Huntingdonshire is already contracted for mixed use development and is not available for the relocation of Cambrige Airport. Full Text: We (ENGIE Services Limited) are contracted developers of the first phase of the development of the former RAF Wyton airfield. Paragraph 5.2.1 and Question 44 of the Issues and Options document relates specifically to the redevelopment of the Cambridge Airport site. The owners of Cambridge Airport, Marshall Group (MG), confirmed an intention in early 2019 to move the company’s operations to a new location by 2030 and that, following further updates, the airfields at Wyton and Cranfield were under consideration as preferred options. MG further undertook publicly to work with these locations to assess each site’s feasibility and signalled its intent to the local authorities and other key stakeholders to put its current Cambridge Airport site forward for development as part of the next Local Plan from 2030. The opportunity for co-location with our development and MG is unfeasible for both organisations. A lack of commercial viability for relocation to RAF Wyton has already been confirmed by MG previously when relocation to RAF Wyton was proposed in 2010. MG's relocation proposals to RAF Wyton are not deliverable and are incompatible with the proposed mixed-use residential development of the site for which it is contracted. We therefore consider that significant adverse weight should be attached to the credibility and robustness of any development proposals reliant upon relocation of Cambridge Airport to RAF Wyton.

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.

4.66 This would continue the focus on the city and not disperse development.

4.65 This would continue the focus on the city and not disperse development.

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.

The Development of Land to the east of Cambridge outside green belt such as Marshalls, and around Cambridge North station would improve these areas. The latter in particular would have benefit particularly from existing good public transport infrastructure.

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

5.4 As set out in paragraph 137 of the NPPF, the Councils’ will need to demonstrate that it has fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development before amending Green Belt boundaries. This will be key in developing a sound Local Plan. 5.5 Opportunities to provide new homes and jobs on land outside of the Green Belt, but still within close proximity to Cambridge and along key public transport corridors should be fully assessed by the Councils. 5.6 A new settlement at Station Fields to the south west of Cambridge will also balance out the distribution of already planned growth. The current Local Plan trajectory places significant reliance on growth sites continuing their housing supply beyond 2031. However, these sites are skewed to the north of the district. Therefore, opportunities for new development to the west and south of Cambridge, especially those outside of the Green Belt, should be fully explored in order to spread the distribution of growth and promote equality and inclusivity throughout the Greater Cambridge area.

2.83 See response to Q42.

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

The second growth option proposes using land on the edge of Green Belt not in the green belt. However the only large site on the edge of Cambridge not in the Green Belt is Cambridge Airport. Previous plans had allocated the Airport and other land to the north and south for a major new urban quarter of 10-12,000 new homes and a strategic scale of jobs. When the Councils were preparing the adopted 2018 Local Plans Marshall advised that it had not secured an alternative site and the land would not be available until at least 2031. In May 2019, the Marshall Group announced that it intends to relocate and has identified three possible options (Cranfield, Duxford and Wyton). As is the case with Option 1, a strategy based on Option 2 alone would not deliver all of the authorities’ additional housing requirements. Indeed Marshalls have confirmed that the Cambridge Airport Site would not be available until at least 2031. Given the uncertainties associated with the relocation of Marshalls operations we do not consider that Option 2 would provide the Councils’ with the scope to identify a sufficient supply of deliverable sites to meet the housing requirements over the next 10 years and beyond