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

2.61 Whilst we consider that new settlement have a very important role in delivering substantial quantities of the social and economic growth that must be delivered, they are not the sole panacea to meeting the economic or housing objectives of the area. The issues of delivery are well known and their contribution, together with that from major urban extensions, needs to be complemented by a range of other elements and opportunities.

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. Summary of Comments: Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

9.9.1 As outlined above, South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City have got a history of including new settlements as one key component of a balanced strategy and a number of these are currently delivering housing across the area. Gladman believe that moving forwards, given the scale of growth required across the plan area that new settlements should continue to play an important role in delivering much needed housing. Gladman remind the Council that although these types of sites can play a key role, it is critical that they form part of a strategy which offers a range of sites, both in terms of size and location across the whole plan area. The Council need to avoid an over reliance on delivery from this type of large-scale site. 9.9.2 It is important that through the plan preparation, the Councils have a detailed understanding of any potential new settlements and the specific site complexities that may impact on delivery. Ensuring the Plan is realistic in terms of scale and timeframes for delivery will be crucial for ensuring the effectiveness of the plan as a whole. 9.9.3 In principle, Gladman are supportive of a spatial strategy incorporating new settlements, provided the new settlement(s) is in the right location, the assumptions regarding delivery are realistic and that the approach is combined with other elements to ensure housing delivery across the plan area and over the plan period. For example, the plan would need to balance new settlements with growth to a range of settlements allowing small/ medium sized sites to come forward earlier in the plan period. 9.9.4 With regards to the points made above, Gladman refer to paragraph 72 of the NPPF (2019) which states: “The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy-making authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way…”

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 Northstowe. The allocation of the new town at Northstow will deliver strategically significant numbers of new homes to meet the needs of the District and this approach is recognised as forming 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. On behalf of Southern & Regional Dvelopments (Willingham), 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. Summary of Comments: Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

New planned settlements are key to meeting the housing need across the planning period and should be encouraged where a sustainable settlement is proposed. This can principally be achieved through locating new development in locations which have good access to sustainable modes of transport. New development should be located to take advantage of existing or planned transport infrastructure and should be designed in a manner which encourages the take up of active modes of travel. After three decades of focusing new development in and around existing settlements, it is now recognised by the Government that a different approach is needed to meet future development requirements. The redevelopment of brownfield land has been hugely successful and, while large areas of brownfield are still available, their distribution across England is uneven. Some large conurbations still have sufficient brownfield land to meet their needs; but areas under particular development pressures and rural areas that had little brownfield land supply to start with, must now look to greenfield sites. The question therefore is what greenfield sites might be most suitable for development. Many existing settlements are not suitable for further extension. Urban extensions upon urban extensions can lead to issues if they are not properly integrated. In particular, the distribution of services can become ad-hoc. In certain areas, therefore, where demand for development space is high and is expected to continue to be high for the foreseeable future, a new settlement might be appropriate. New settlements have the benefit of starting from scratch. They allow the core areas to be suitably sized to meet the future anticipated needs and ensure that transport infrastructure is sufficient. The Government has recognised that new settlements are likely to be an essential tool in meeting future housing and employment needs. To date, the Government has identified 14 locally-led new settlements across the Country. Many others are being pursued through private funding in close collaboration with local authorities. The published Government White Paper ‘Fixing Our Broken Housing Market’ (February 2017) reaffirms the Government’s intention to continue to promote new settlements. Paragraph A.57 of the White Paper seeks to support the delivery of existing and future garden communities and the Government’s commitment to: ● Ensure that decisions on infrastructure investment take better account of the opportunities t0 support new and existing communities; ● Legislate to enable the creation of locally accountable New Town Development Corporations, enabling local areas to use them as the delivery vehicle if they wish to. This can strengthen local representation and accountability, and increase opportunities for communities to benefit from land value capture; and ● Following the previous consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, amend policy to encourage a more proactive approach by authorities to bringing forward new settlements in their plans, as one means by which housing requirements can be addressed.” For the reasons given in Question 2 and as outlined in the accompanying Concept Vision, a planled new community at Six Mile Bottom will allow East Cambridgeshire and the combined Greater Cambridge Authorities to achieve a sustainable form of development by planning for jobs, homes and supporting infrastructure (transport, utilities, services and facilities) in the right places, alongside protecting and enhancing the environment. The scheme can deliver circa 8,500 new homes, jobs, essential central services such as secondary and primary schools, community hubs and medical facilities as well as local retail space and will provide the important elements to allow a new community to thrive.

Given the historical success in the provision of new settlements in South Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne, it is considered that the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan should capitalise on this experience and implement it through the new spatial strategy. Furthermore, as strategic allocations have been established at Northstowe and Waterbeach, it would be logical for these to be continued through into the new spatial strategy for the wider plan area. 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 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. Summary of Comments: Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

As a general principle, the Trust supports the development of planned new settlements where Garden City design principles are adopted but we have concerns around their deliverability in accordance with sustainability objectives.

• CambridgePPF believes that new settlements must be of a large enough size to promote sufficient employment, retail, education, and leisure opportunities so as to reduce travel and dependence on Cambridge. We therefore believe that the priority must be to complete and to consider expanding the settlements approved in the 2018 Plan rather than create more. • The viability of any new settlement will depend on the transport infrastructure, and particularly on the availability of high-quality public transport linking with the main centres of employment and leisure facilities. We do not support the development of residential suburbs in the countryside isolated by the lack of good transport links (ie a repeat of Cambourne). • The wider implications of new settlements should be fully considered, understood, explained, and agreed in advance as part of the planning process, such as any requirements for transport or services infrastructure. For example, it is not sufficient to vaguely say that public transport will be provided – more detail needs to be provided so that communities can understand the full implications of planning decisions at the point when that planning decision is being made – not years later when that vague public transport turns out to be a new busway or railway that is damaging to the landscape, heritage and communities.

This approach through the use of new settlements on former military bases or open land beyond the Green Belt has formed a major part of the growth strategy in recent decades and will continue to do so during the next Local Plan through already allocated sites. However, this approach has encouraged increases in commuting and carbon emissions, and many of the transport infrastructure developments required to address this failing will themselves have significant adverse impacts on nature conservation sites or priority landscapes forming part of a nature recovery network. It is therefore hard to justify in sustainability terms a continuation of this approach beyond those sites already allocated, unless they also form part of public transport corridors (see below).

We have been encouraged by the quality of thinking by Homes England in the planning and design for Northstowe phases 2 and 3, especially the creation of a viable and vibrant town centre: a marked contrast to Phase 1. New settlements give the opportunity for designing carbon neutral from the outset with appropriate infrastructure. Bar Hill and Cambourne illustrate the opportunity and the pitfalls and, so long as we learn the lessons (and enforce the solutions on the developers), new settlements with a range of employment opportunities included form the start are an effective means of meeting the needs for expansion in the area – so long as they are started soon enough to be ready to meet the demand.

• 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.

1.58 Our clients believe that new settlements take too long to deliver. Moreover, they generally require a significant level of social infrastructure up front especially if facilities are not delivered in time for when new residents move in. This has been seen with Cambourne where early residents suffered higher levels of depression as the social networks within established settlements were not there. Large new settlements are also more susceptible to national economic downturns as has been seen with the delay in the delivery of homes at the new town of Northstowe. 1.59 New settlements can also have greater landscape impacts and require new highways infrastructure, new junctions, roundabouts, etc, to serve them, which also have significant landscape impacts. All the new settlements that have been permitted in South Cambridgeshire have resulted in reduced levels of affordable housing as a direct result of the significant expenditure on infrastructure needed to develop the sites. Even where they are greenfield sites like Cambourne West this is still the case.

1.56 Our client believes that new settlements take too long to deliver. Moreover, they generally require a significant level of social infrastructure up front especially if facilities are not delivered in time for when new residents move in. This has been seen with Cambourne where early residents suffered higher levels of depression as the social networks within established settlements were not there. Large new settlements are also more susceptible to national economic downturns as has been seen with the delay in the delivery of homes at the new town of Northstowe. 1.57 New settlements can also have greater landscape impacts and require new highways infrastructure, new junctions, roundabouts, etc, to serve them, which also have significant landscape impacts. All the new settlements that have been permitted in South Cambridgeshire have resulted in reduced levels of affordable housing as a direct result of the significant expenditure on infrastructure needed to develop the sites. Even where they are greenfield sites like Cambourne West this is still the case.

Greater Cambridge already relies on new settlements that are still at relatvely early stages of development. Whilst new settlements are one option, this should not be at the expense of smaller sites elsewhere in the hierarchy that can deliver homes more quickly. Sites at village level have an important role to play in supporting the vitality of the existing community. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that "to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services." Land at Park Street, Dry Drayton would provide additional population to support, for example, the existing bus service through the village, contributing to its viablility and longevity. In this regard, the allocation of the site would benefit the whole community in terms of the availability of alternative transport modes. Additionally, the increased population would result in the support of services and facilities within the village, such as the village hall, school and pub which, along with the proposed public open space, will reduce some of the need to travel by whole community.

If properly resourced and delivered as and when promised, then this is a favoured option.

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. On behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Swavesey), 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 which 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 residential development strategies to ensure a robust housing delivery programme for the new Plan period. Summary of Comments: Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

The NPPF (paragraph 72) states that the supply of large numbers of new home often can be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns. Criterion 3 of the paragraph states that they should ‘set clear expectations for the quality of the development and how this can be maintained (such as by following Garden City Principles). The Greater Cambridge area has had a history of accommodating development within new settlements. Such developments can offer a sustainable form of development and, if of sufficient scale, can offer opportunities to provide the appropriate level of supporting strategic infrastructure and employment. Whilst Historic England broadly welcomes the idea of new setttlements, it is important that these are carefully located and planned with respect to all three strands of sustainable development. One of the strands of sustainable development includes the protecting and enhancing the historic environment. Landscape and heritage assets should be considered from the outset when determining the location of a new settlement in order to ensure that development can be delivered whilst having regard to the these assets. It is expected that strategic new settlement policies makes reference to the historic environment and the need for its conservation or enhancement. In considering potential locations for new settlements, it is important to consider the potential impact of new development on character and vitality of existing historic places. Consideration should also be given to the landscape character/context and how any new development would relate to it. Any new place has a past. Attention should be given as to how heritage can shape our future places and how new development might respond to our heritage to enhance the place and those assets. Whilst we recognise that it is hard to avoid all heritage assets for new settlement proposals given the scale of the proposed development, never-the-less sites where should be chosen where there are likely to be fewer heritage assets and where harm to heritage can be avoided or at least minimised. The key to the development of large strategic sites, be they new settlements or urban extensions, is early Heritage Impact Assessment prior to allocation and before the site is included in a Local Plan, to determine suitability of site per se and, if so, which parts of site developable and to recommend appropriate mitigation. We would also emphasise the importance of clear policy wording and ideally a concept diagram to show key principles for the new settlement including heritage mitigation. Many Local Plans state that new settlements should come forward as a new ‘Garden Village’ based on the Town and Country Planning Association’s principles for Garden Cities. It is important at this stage to highlight that whilst these principles are useful and do embody a number of modern town planning concepts, they do not address the historic environment. It is therefore unclear how the TCPA principles can be reconciled with the NPPF’s definition of sustainable development in terms of its environmental strand which requires the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Whilst the TCPA Garden Cities Principles are silent on the historic environment, their 2017 publication “The Art of Building a Garden City” does provide a further level of detail, particularly with regards to the siting of new settlements. This publication states that, “locations for new garden cities should not only avoid damaging areas that are protected for their ecological, landscape, historic or climate-resilience value but should actively be located in areas where there can be a positive impact on these assets. Underpinning the consideration of sites for new garden cities or towns should be the extent to which each one … will allow for positive impacts on assets of historic value”. (Emphasis added, pg 100) In drafting any principles for the development of new garden communities, we would suggest that you ensure that reference is made to the need to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The importance of the Big Themes identified in the Issues & Options is such that the spatial strategy of the Plan must optimise sustainable choices adjacent to Cambridge rather than dispersing growth and encouraging increased travel.

European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) recognise that the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan will capitalise on the success of the strategic allocations that are already established through historical strategies made by South Cambridgeshire, such as Cambourne and those made more recently, at 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. Summary of Comments: Inclusion of new settlements is supported, but should not be considered a primary mechanism for housing delivery.

The south of the county already has enough new settlements with Cambourne, Bourne, Northstowe, Alconbury Weald and Waterbeach yet to be built out. The effects of these major developments is still unknown and to contemplate more, so quickly, without some experience of the effects of these settlements on their residents and the communities around them seems over hasty.

- Some new settlements appear necessary if the growth targets are to be met. - Waterbeach, Northstowe, Cambourne, Orchard Park and Wing/Marleigh are providing relevant experience of the issues. If additional new settlements are being considered to take advantage of new transport infrastructure such as East-West rail or the future availability of Cambridge Airport, the LDP process should review these issues.

As guided by NPPF 2019, this option should be explored fully to establish what opportunities exist that can deliver a sustainable pattern of growth without significant Green Belt release. The stated advantages and challenges are equally applicable to the ‘edge of city Green Belt release’ option; village expansion and development along transport corridors and are not specific to this spatial option. There are clear opportunities to consider new garden settlements within the plan period (and beyond). This renaissance in Ebenezer Howard’s ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ planning philosophy which gave rise to the Garden City Movement provides a platform to capture the big themes through Garden Settlement principles for new development. The revival of these principles was set out in the 2012 NPPF, which at Paragraph 52 stated that: “The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities.” In February 2015, Lord Matthew Taylor, who advises the Government and has advised a number of successive UK Governments on planning policy, published ‘Garden Villages: Empowering Localism to Solve the Housing Crisis’ via the Policy Exchange. This Report sets out “many small new ‘garden communities’ are needed (as well as some larger ones) if we are to scratch the surface of the housing problem in a locally responsive way reflecting the principles of localism.” He went on to state that “a single new garden village in each rural English local authority would create around a million extra homes – the homes we need, with the space and gardens, infrastructure, services and employment that people want, all without destroying the places we know and love.” - Lord Taylor In response, the Government published a policy paper in 2016 titled ‘Locally led garden villages, towns and cities’. This sets out how the Government, Local Planning Authorities and communities can support local areas who want to create new garden villages, towns and cities. It offers tailored government support to local areas with ambitious and innovative proposals to deliver 1,500 homes and above. Specifically, it highlights that “…new settlements have a key role to play, not only in meeting this country’s housing needs in the short-term, but also in providing a stable pipeline of housing well into the future.” “The garden village must be a new discrete settlement, and not an extension of an existing town or village. This does not exclude proposals where there are already a few existing homes”. This shift in government policy continues within NPPF 2019, paragraph 72 which directs strategicpolicy makers to consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in an areas infrastructure when considering new development locations. Limb b goes on to state that “ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns to which there is good access”. There are clear opportunities to explore new garden villages in the Greater Cambridge Plan. For example, our clients land at Croxton could meet the guiding principles. The location benefits from good access to St Neots and Cambourne in the early phases with clear opportunities to have direct access into Cambridge (via the CAM) and beyond to Milton Keynes through the future East-West rail connections. It can be scaled to have a level of self-containment commensurate with a smaller garden village of circa 1500 homes for this plan period with opportunities to expand into a larger community as required in the future. It has a varied landscape character comprising wooded areas and open fields providing a strong baseline against which to develop garden village principles. This proposal has garnered support from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. In a letter dated 22 March 2019, the Mayor wrote offered support for this proposition, stating that “A new settlement at this location has the potential to address elements of regional growth requirements highlighted in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Area Review (CPIER)”. A copy of the letter is attached to this submission. It is not always the case that the creation of a new settlement takes longer to become a reality. Much depends upon the quality of the existing infrastructure which it will connect to and the overall scale of the new community; land ownerships; level of constraints amongst other matters. This spatial option should not be considered in isolation. The location of any new settlement should be informed by its ability to deliver on other policy aspects (safeguarding of Green Belt Land; accessibility and connectivity to other main centres; landscape character; ecological enhancement; health and wellbeing; flood risk; access to the countryside etc). When combined with encouraging development along transport corridors (existing and planned), the site at Croxton has the potential to deliver on all four identified themes of Climate Change / Biodiversity and Green Spaces / Wellbeing and Social Inclusion / Great Places.

CUH does not feel that it is appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the development strategy, but we wish to highlight two key points: 1. Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s) in the medium to long term would need to be proximate to the existing campus. This is being considered as part of the CUHP led work on the 2050 vision, due for publication by summer 2020, which may require a further Green Belt review in areas close to the existing campus. 2. As part of our housing case, we are advocating siting housing in accessible locations to the hospital, by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). We believe that the most sustainable travel patterns, with associated benefits for air quality, congestion and quality of life, could be achieved through an appropriate review of the Green Belt boundaries, as part of a blended development strategy. This could include development on the edge of Cambridge and adjoining villages well served by public transport. This could include new settlements, if appropriate.

CUHP does not feel it appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the development strategy, but support the findings from the 2018 Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER). This concluded that, “a dispersal strategy, which seeks to relocate homes and businesses away from city centres is unlikely to be successful, as it is ‘agglomeration’ – the desire to be near other companies – that attracts companies to the area. Other options, such as densification, fringe growth, and transport corridors all have potential benefits, and should be pursued to an extent, though none should be taken to its extreme.” Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (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 is sited in accessible locations to the campus, by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). Potentially, the most sustainable travel patterns, with associated benefits for air quality, congestion and quality of life, could be achieved through an appropriate review of the Green Belt boundaries, as part of a blended development strategy. This could include development on the edge of Cambridge and adjoining villages well served by public transport. 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.

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.

4.68 The councils’ approach to development has already included planned new settlements. There is often a significant lead in time and a community is not created by the physical delivery of buildings. It can take time to develop and for a community to form.

4.67 The councils’ approach to development has already included planned new settlements. There is often a significant lead in time and a community is not created by the physical delivery of buildings. It can take time to develop and for a community to form.

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.

Good idea provided adequately provided withgood public transport and other infrastructure.

52. New settlements can contribute significantly to meeting housing need but should not be relied upon as the sole solution. In recent years, several Local Authorities have been criticised, and Local Plan Examinations have failed, due to relying on a small number of large allocations. 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 due to concerns about delivering a new garden village. 53. The above demonstrates that a range of sites and growth options should be progressed to deliver housing need. This should include allocating small, medium and large scales site in various locations to provide a robust supply of housing. This also reiterates the need to exceed minimum housing targets. 54. An alternative solution to planning for further new settlements is to expand existing new settlements. Extension of existing new settlements, such as Cambourne, can provide a level of certainty as the required infrastructure and investment has already been put in place which removes a significant barrier for future delivery. This is particularly the case for Cambourne which is due to benefit from significant road, rail and metro investments and infrastructure over the plan period. Expanding the provision of housing, jobs and other growth in this location would make more efficient use of this investment and prevent the Authority starting from scratch in generating this level of investment and infrastructure.