Question 46. What do you think about creating planned new settlements?

This is reasonable provided there are enough local jobs to avoid it becoming a commuter settlement and only if the environmental resources, especially water, can sustain the growth.

The provision of New Settlements to meet future housing needs has been a significant component of the two Council’s development strategy over successive plans. However, the delivery of these new settlements has taken longer than expected due to their long lead-in times and significant infrastructure requirements. As a result, there remains a significant pipeline supply of new homes still to be delivered in the currently committed new settlements at Waterbeach, Bourn, and Northstowe. Pigeon therefore consider that the development strategy for the Joint Local Plan should avoid reliance on any further new settlements in this plan period and should focus on supporting the delivery of the three new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn.

We are unsure at present. It would be best to pause on new settlements until such time as there is further progress with the actual development of Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourne Airfield. It is almost certainly the case that the District Council has learnt many lessons from the planning of these (and Cambourne) and experience is developing all the time. There are obvious issues over the costs of servicing sites for new settlements, the delivery rate of new housing and the design quality achieved. The complexities are appreciated so it is felt better to await more substantial development of these new settlements before considering planning for more. There would not appear to be major brownfield sites which could support a new settlement so they would inevitably involve greenfield land.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the concept of new settlements, including the possibility of a large-scale new town as part of the spatial strategy in the East-West arc.

• In general, we support planned new settlements as opposed to the enlargement of villages and the densification of Cambridge. However, further new settlements should not be planned unless the case has been made for further growth in Greater Cambridge. Elsewhere we have questioned the sustainability and advisability of further growth. • New settlements, if built, must be large enough to provide education, employment, retail and leisure activities so as to reduce travel to, and dependence on, Cambridge. The centre of Cambridge cannot continue to absorb more and more visitors, whether from near or afar, and a degree of ‘disneyfication’ has already taken place from uncontrolled tourism.

New settlements have a tendency to be car dominated.

I do not think that new settlements should be built if it means the loss of agricultural land. I also think that since current transport infrastructure is so poor, it would be unlikely that a new settlement would have appropriate public transport created for it to make it an attractive place to live, without the need for causing more traffic congestion and air pollution through people using their own cars to commute, etc.

Yes, but must have their own facilities to give a sense of place and community. Prioritise easy access to public transport from the outset.

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. Planned new settlements can deliver sigfnicant growth in a holistic way.

(1) The most sustainable distribution model is to focus development in existing and new settlements on the outer edge of the Cambridge Green Belt and along existing multi-modal transport corridors, along with densification of the city so long as it does not compromise the city’s historic environment. (2) This model is a combination Options 1, 4 and 6. (Option 2 is essentially the development of Cambridge Airport. As the development of a large, edge of centre brownfield site this is the most sustainable option of all and should be developed; it is left out of this analysis as it is a single site and may not become available over the Plan period.) (3) Our proposed spatial strategy would see the extension of existing new settlements at Waterbeach, Northstowe and Cambourne/Bourn airfield, all served by railway stations providing a direct rail link to Cambridge North and Central stations. (4) Northstowe (4.1) Expansion of Northstowe beyond the planned 10,000 homes is an aspiration for Homes England and would accord with the Northstowe AAP. Providing Northstowe with a rail link direct to Cambridge North and Cambridge Central would increase connectivity and should be a priority for the authorities. (4.2) Land north west of B1050, Station Road, (August 2013 SHLAA Site 242) is identified in the Northstowe AAP as a long term strategic reserve. Its development would expand Northstowe beyond 10,000 homes. Historic planning documents (S/2011/14/OL) indicate that Homes England has a legal interest over land to the south, between Longstanton, Oakington and the A14. It is also understood that HE is seeking further acquisitions in the area. (4.3) Located immediately beyond the Cambridge Green Belt and served by the upgraded A14 and Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB), further extensions to Northstowe represent the most sustainable, and deliverable, housing option for ‘Greater Cambridge’. (4.4) The new settlement would lack adequate and fast public transport into Cambridge, as the CGB does not have the capacity to serve a new town of >10,000 homes at peak times. By routing the EWR Central Section along the A428 corridor, with new stations at Cambourne and Northstowe, and then approaching Cambridge from the north, as CBRR proposes, an expanded Northstowe new town would be served with a high capacity, frequent train service into Cambridge. At the same time, Northstowe and Cambourne would have a direct rail link to destinations westwards to Oxford. (5) Cambourne (5.1) Following the grant of permission for strategic site Land West of Cambourne (S/2903/14/OL and related permissions), a re-assessment of previously discounted sites north of the A428 will be undertaken as part of the SHLAA. Six years ago, SCDC rejected SHLAA sites 194, Land north of A428, Cambourne, and 265, Land to the north of the A428, Cambourne, noting, “The Council's view is that a physical expansion of Cambourne is not appropriate or necessary. Expansion of Cambourne would completely alter the original concept and character of the three related villages to one of a market town. The Council's view is that this cannot be done successfully given the way in which Cambourne has been and continues to be developed.” (5.2) This view was reiterated by the Inspector in the Core Strategy Examination. (5.3) This was prior to the allocation of ‘West of Cambourne’ in the 2018 Local Plan. If the joint authorities need to find land for a further 1,800 homes then land to the north of the A428 should be reconsidered in the next round of the SHLAA. (5.4) Cambourne is urgently in need of a railway station providing direct access to Cambridge. When this is built as part of the East West Railway line, the additional passenger capacity that a heavy rail line affords will enable further expansion of Cambourne. (5.5) EWR Co proposes a location for Cambourne station to the south. This would blight the village of Caxton and have poor linkage with Bourne Airfield and the A428. The CBRR route locates Cambourne station to the north adjacent to the A428, creating a multi-modal transport hub easily accessible from Cambourne, the new settlement at Bourn Airfield and the A428. (5.6) CBRR urges the local authorities to support a new railway station at Cambourne, located to the north on the A428 corridor, with a view to alleviating current congestion and increasing the new settlement’s capacity for further expansion. (6) Combining new settlements with public transport corridors scores highly on objectives 1-4 and 12-15 in the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal. The second most sustainable option is densification of the city. Some densification should be part of the overall spatial strategy (7) The most sustainable distribution for new strategic allocations is a combination of extending existing new settlements at Cambourne, Northstowe and Bourn Airfield.

Substantial growth would be horrendous and deadly. Any new settlement to the north will just flood. We need plenty of agricultural land when half our crops get scorched and fail. This doesn't sound sensible.

New settlements should be sustainably located in relation to public transport and adequate routes made available for non-motorised users. The impact of new development on any relevant adjoining district and the surrounding transport infrastructure should be carefully examined and any mitigation measures identified and incorporated early on.

Please refer to the response to question 42

New settlements present real challenges but if associated with carefully planned infrastructure development, they play a key role in offering housing choice. We also need to be careful not to cause limited demographic diversity of these areas through design and housing mix. They need to be made attractive to a diversity of age groups and socio-economic groups.

Any planned new settlements must be designed such that walking, cycling and public transport routes are available to use immediately as the first residents move in. We cannot risk entrenching high levels of motor vehicle use in any new development when Greater Cambridge needs to address issues of climate change, air quality, congestion and inequality.

The creation of new settlements is fraught with delivery problems, which lead to significant delays. It would be more prudent to support and improve the sustainability of existing settlements, upgrading the existing infrastructure as necessary.

Yes see 36 / 42

This will contribute to inequality in Cambridgeshire. It is much better to focus on expanding existing villages.

New settlements are almost impossible to plan and implement effectively and damage neighbouring communities with ten miles.

New setllements should be stand alone communities. They should not engulf existing villages.

Depends on where this is and how it is built and how impacts on transport links

I don’t know.

Councils should focus on delivering the ones already planned – eg why has Northstowe taken so long when the housing need has been so urgent for so long? – its not as if the delay has resulted in really great design or even adequate cycling infrastructure – unless there is a fundamental change in transport thinking, the new settlements will continue to be car based dormitory towns for Cambridge commuters.

The four themes for the Local Plan of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Green spaces, Wellbeing and Social Inclusion and Great Places go to the heart of the building blocks necessary to create new communities. Such communities provide all those involved with the ability to deliver communities which in their own right provide all which new residents and occupiers need rather than seeking to retrofit urban extensions onto the edges of settlements where facilities and infrastructure do not always or readily lend themselves to sustaining significant amounts of additional growth. A whole new settlement in the right location provides a real opportunity for substantial growth which can connect into transport networks and avoid the need to continue to release sensitive Green Belt land or land which is unconstrained by neighbouring uses and limited infrastructure. Job creation is equally essential as the delivery of housing and without growth in a planned way the objectives of Greater Cambridge will not be realised. New communities can be shaped from inception with the quality of spaces and buildings being at the heart of design principles established early on. Their location is key as the new community will play a key role in supporting existing established communities and links between those communities, covering all aspects, are therefore very important.

See our comments above in relation to the Options for Growth.

Don’t live in one, people of Northstowe seem happy. I think they tend to be a bit homogeneous (the buildings don’t know about the people). I support them in principle would like to see more variety in all of them from the inception. They should model what living in an established community has, massive variety of housing stock, different communities within the larger community etc etc. I think any town over a certain size should have a swimming pool. Excellent child care is essential. A pub/ café/ community socialising space is important. Health and schools are critical. Opportunities for different people in the community to interact. Where, for example, can Womens Institute meet - there’s no WI at Eddington and the space that is notionally looking for a WI is actually not prepared to give them a space in reality – that’s bad. Where can a new business set up. There should be plenty of green spaces within the community. Do children have to be driven to a playground? If they do that’s a fail. Make it so playgrounds are only accessible by walking ( some disabled parking spaces).

No comment.

It is considered that the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan should capitalise on the success of the strategic allocations that have been established through historical strategies made by South Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne and those made more recently, such as Northstowe. The allocation of the new town at Cambourne has delivered strategically significant numbers of new homes to meet the needs of the District and this approach should form part of the comprehensive spatial strategy of the new Plan. However, it is considered that the inclusion of new settlements as strategic opportunities to achieve substantial housing numbers should not prejudice other sources of housing from other elements of the spatial strategy. The National Planning Policy Framework provides the basis as to how Local Planning Authorities should approach identifying the realisation of new settlements at paragraph 72 where it states that; "The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through the planning of larger scale development, such as new settlements […]." However, it also asserts that elsewhere in the Framework, specifically at paragraph 68, that the identification of smaller sites is vital to ensure a robust housing delivery that can maintain a consistent residential supply. Sites such as at that Fen End, Willingham are considered to be less constrained by factors that would normally limit the delivery time of a strategic allocation. As such, the site should be considered as part of a wider, comprehensive spatial strategy that secures a range of sites across a variety of sizes and scales. The site at Fen End, Willingham could be more quickly brought forward to support housing numbers if circumstances were to arise where the delivery of strategic allocations were delayed. This approach would result in a sound strategy that would directly correlate with the requirements asserted in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, it is considered that the new Plan should not provide inappropriate emphasis on allocation of new settlements or the delivery of those already identified. Their complexity, such as multiple land interests and provision of infrastructure can result in significant delay in implementation and so can result in detrimental impacts to the anticipated housing trajectory and supply. To reduce the risk and avoid such a scenario, it is stressed that the emerging Local Plan and its spatial strategy should include new settlements, but not as a primary source of housing numbers. New settlement allocations should form part of a comprehensive arrangement of multiple strategies to ensure a robust housing delivery programme for the new Plan period. Supporting Documentation - Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

It is considered that the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan should capitalise on the success of the strategic allocations that have been established through historical strategies made by South Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne and those made more recently, such as Northstowe. The allocation of the new town at Cambourne has delivered strategically significant numbers of new homes to meet the needs of the District and this approach should form part of the comprehensive spatial strategy of the new Plan. However, it is considered that the inclusion of new settlements as strategic opportunities to achieve substantial housing numbers should not prejudice other sources of housing from other elements of the spatial strategy. The National Planning Policy Framework provides the basis as to how Local Planning Authorities should approach identifying the realisation of new settlements at paragraph 72 where it states that; "The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through the planning of larger scale development, such as new settlements […]." However, it also asserts that elsewhere in the Framework, specifically at paragraph 68, that the identification of smaller sites is vital to ensure a robust housing delivery that can maintain a consistent residential supply. Therefore, it is considered that the new Plan should not provide inappropriate emphasis on allocation new settlements or the delivery of those already identified. Their complexity, such as overlapping land interests and provision of infrastructure can result in significant delay in implementation and so can result in detrimental impacts to the anticipated housing trajectory and supply. To reduce the risk and avoid such a scenario, it is stressed that the emerging Local Plan and its spatial strategy should include new settlements, but not as a primary source of housing numbers. New settlement allocations should form part of a comprehensive arrangement of multiple strategies to ensure a robust housing delivery programme for the new Plan period.

79. If the correct mechanisms are not in place to ensure that new settlements are delivered as intended during the Plan period, then reliance on such allocations for meeting housing need would not be effective or sound in meeting housing and job needs. 80. In recent years, a number of Local Authorities have been criticised, and Local Plans have failed at Examination, due to relying on such limited approaches. The most recent being the St Albans Local Plan Examination in January 2020 where the Planning Inspector cancelled the remaining hearings after the first week. This decision was made following discussions focusing on the proposed allocation of a Garden Village to provide 2,300 new homes and the significant concerns about delivering the allocation as the site also benefitted from planning permission for a rail interchange. 81. New settlements can contribute significantly to meeting housing need but cannot be relied upon as the sole solution. The above demonstrates that there are real risks associated with simply relying on large urban extensions or any single solution to delivering housing need and that a range of sites must be allocated in order to provide a robust supply of housing.