Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Please see representations

The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

Procedurally, the evidence base for Policy S/NEC was published on the 22nd November, only allowing 3 weeks for responses.
Deliverability of Policy NEC AAP and the impact on adopted Policy E/1.
Concerns regarding the jobs growth proposed, and evidence base.
Deliverability of S/NEC without a strategic intervention to address unresolved transport concerns.
The open space deficit, and deliverability of S/NEC without the strategic scale public formal and informal open space proposed at CSPN.
Out of date and / or inaccurate evidence base in support of the policy.

SUMMARY BELOW, REPRESENTATION DOCUMENT ATTACHED

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO HELAA SITE 40096

7. Summary & Conclusions

7.1. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.2. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required.

7.3. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower. Cambridge Science Park

7.4. Cambridge Science Park is the most sustainable location for further employment growth within Greater Cambridge, therefore the emerging JLP should reference the continued importance of Cambridge Science Park as an employment site.

7.5. Given the recognition of all other comparable science parks and employment destinations within the emerging JLP, and the recognition that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for development in Greater Cambridge.

7.6. The emerging JLP should therefore include the following policy: Policy S/CSP: New Employment Provision – Cambridge Science Park Appropriate proposals for employment development and redevelopment on Cambridge Science Park (as defined on the Policies Map) will be supported, where they enable the continued development of the Cambridge Cluster of high technology research and development companies. The need for Mid-Tech

7.7. As part of our Call for Sites submission we provided a 2019 report by Volterra (resubmitted for ease of reference), which clearly set out the floorspace requirements of mid-tech occupiers, to 2031 as ranging between c. 80,000 - 450,000 sqm of new floorspac.

7.8. A further Technical Note by Volterra is submitted with these representations setting out our feedback on the methodology and why we believe that the emerging mid-tech sector is not appropriately considered or acknowledged in these requirements, leading to a substantial under-provision of space which, if taken forward, will result in constraints on employment growth in the future. The importance of mid-tech and why it is not covered in the Employment Land Review are summarised as follows: • Mid-tech is not included in the ‘key sectors’ that are used to forecast employment need as these identify previously growing sectors, rather than future growth sectors; • The densities and use classes used to estimate future floorspace need may not be appropriate for the mid-tech sector.

7.9. We would urge Greater Cambridge to review the evidence with regard to mid-tech needs, and to engage with the Cambridge Science Park team to understand the needs of the sector.

7.10. We ask why has there been no consideration of mid-tech as a growth sector? Had this been done, it would be clear that (i) it has a large growth potential and (ii) it would benefit from clustering with CSP.

7.11. Our own analysis of the sectors which make up mid-tech highlights a very significant concentration of mid-tech in the local area. Why is this not acknowledged or given any weight?

7.12. The emerging JLP should recognise the importance of the research, development & innovation that occurs within the Cambridge economy and the need to accelerate the move to net-zero by supporting scientific innovation. The appraisal of CSPN

7.13. A review of the HELAA results for the other large employment sites identifies that there are other sites scoring similarly that are taken forward for Green Belt release.

7.14. Interrogating the two red scores for CSPN these relate to Landscape and the Strategic Highways Impact, the former has been considered on a strategic basis and takes no account of the local landscape (ie the impact of the A14) nor the landscape improvements included within the proposals. The Strategic Highways Impact is questioned for a scheme committed to no net increase.

7.15. However, despite CSP North being categorised as Red for its suitability, the site has been carried forward for the SA and an appraisal undertaken.

7.16. The site again scores similarly to other Green Belt sites taken forward for release. The SA then undertaken for the policies relating to those sites includes the policy mitigation, for example where landscape improvements are included within the policy, those sites are then afforded a more positive score than a site not taken through to policy wording. If this approach were undertaken for CSPN the site would score similarly well through the SA process.

7.17. The arguments made for other sites could also be said of CSP/CSPN but in the context of midtech rather than life sciences. CSP plays a recognised role in the clustering and growth of high-tech firms, supporting start-ups and scale-up businesses, but now needs space to enable mid-tech firms to continue to innovate and grow here. Whilst this growth could occur to a lesser scale on alternative sites outside the Green Belt, this would not benefit from the clustering with CSP and therefore the growth would be lower and less productive (the opportunities provided by a co-located Campus). CSP has, and CSPN will, be subject to significant private sector investment (just as valuable – arguably more so – than public investment) which in turn will deliver benefits to the public sector, such as playing a crucial role in delivering the sustainable travel objectives of the area.

7.18. It is therefore questioned as to why these arguments are recognised in the context of other Green Belt sites but not CSPN? Exceptional circumstances

7.19. The need for mid-tech is demonstrated, and the need for this type of employment space in close proximity to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Science Park has a distinct and unique set of characteristics, not available anywhere else at other research facilities in the sub-region and fully aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

7.20. CSPN would benefit from proximity to CSP and the long term custodianship of Trintiy College Cambridge, the later having made CSP one of the most successful Science Parks in Europe.

7.21. The socio-economic benefits in this location are illustrated, and links to Cambridge Regional College and wider educational institutions will benefit the next generation of innovators.

7.22. The sustainability credentials of delivering this site on a key transport route are clear, whilst the vision for a site with the highest environmental quality are demonstrated. Risks to NECAAP

7.23. Without significant interventions such as those which may be delivered by CSPN, a reduction in vehicle trips at CSP, sufficient to allow the delivery of the wider NECAAP will be difficult to deliver.

Conclusion

7.24. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.25. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed.

7.26. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower.

SUMMARY BELOW, REPRESENTATION DOCUMENT ATTACHED

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO HELAA SITE 40096

7. Summary & Conclusions

7.1. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.2. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required.

7.3. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower. Cambridge Science Park

7.4. Cambridge Science Park is the most sustainable location for further employment growth within Greater Cambridge, therefore the emerging JLP should reference the continued importance of Cambridge Science Park as an employment site.

7.5. Given the recognition of all other comparable science parks and employment destinations within the emerging JLP, and the recognition that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for development in Greater Cambridge.

7.6. The emerging JLP should therefore include the following policy: Policy S/CSP: New Employment Provision – Cambridge Science Park Appropriate proposals for employment development and redevelopment on Cambridge Science Park (as defined on the Policies Map) will be supported, where they enable the continued development of the Cambridge Cluster of high technology research and development companies. The need for Mid-Tech

7.7. As part of our Call for Sites submission we provided a 2019 report by Volterra (resubmitted for ease of reference), which clearly set out the floorspace requirements of mid-tech occupiers, to 2031 as ranging between c. 80,000 - 450,000 sqm of new floorspac.

7.8. A further Technical Note by Volterra is submitted with these representations setting out our feedback on the methodology and why we believe that the emerging mid-tech sector is not appropriately considered or acknowledged in these requirements, leading to a substantial under-provision of space which, if taken forward, will result in constraints on employment growth in the future. The importance of mid-tech and why it is not covered in the Employment Land Review are summarised as follows: • Mid-tech is not included in the ‘key sectors’ that are used to forecast employment need as these identify previously growing sectors, rather than future growth sectors; • The densities and use classes used to estimate future floorspace need may not be appropriate for the mid-tech sector.

7.9. We would urge Greater Cambridge to review the evidence with regard to mid-tech needs, and to engage with the Cambridge Science Park team to understand the needs of the sector.

7.10. We ask why has there been no consideration of mid-tech as a growth sector? Had this been done, it would be clear that (i) it has a large growth potential and (ii) it would benefit from clustering with CSP.

7.11. Our own analysis of the sectors which make up mid-tech highlights a very significant concentration of mid-tech in the local area. Why is this not acknowledged or given any weight?

7.12. The emerging JLP should recognise the importance of the research, development & innovation that occurs within the Cambridge economy and the need to accelerate the move to net-zero by supporting scientific innovation. The appraisal of CSPN

7.13. A review of the HELAA results for the other large employment sites identifies that there are other sites scoring similarly that are taken forward for Green Belt release.

7.14. Interrogating the two red scores for CSPN these relate to Landscape and the Strategic Highways Impact, the former has been considered on a strategic basis and takes no account of the local landscape (ie the impact of the A14) nor the landscape improvements included within the proposals. The Strategic Highways Impact is questioned for a scheme committed to no net increase.

7.15. However, despite CSP North being categorised as Red for its suitability, the site has been carried forward for the SA and an appraisal undertaken.

7.16. The site again scores similarly to other Green Belt sites taken forward for release. The SA then undertaken for the policies relating to those sites includes the policy mitigation, for example where landscape improvements are included within the policy, those sites are then afforded a more positive score than a site not taken through to policy wording. If this approach were undertaken for CSPN the site would score similarly well through the SA process.

7.17. The arguments made for other sites could also be said of CSP/CSPN but in the context of midtech rather than life sciences. CSP plays a recognised role in the clustering and growth of high-tech firms, supporting start-ups and scale-up businesses, but now needs space to enable mid-tech firms to continue to innovate and grow here. Whilst this growth could occur to a lesser scale on alternative sites outside the Green Belt, this would not benefit from the clustering with CSP and therefore the growth would be lower and less productive (the opportunities provided by a co-located Campus). CSP has, and CSPN will, be subject to significant private sector investment (just as valuable – arguably more so – than public investment) which in turn will deliver benefits to the public sector, such as playing a crucial role in delivering the sustainable travel objectives of the area.

7.18. It is therefore questioned as to why these arguments are recognised in the context of other Green Belt sites but not CSPN? Exceptional circumstances

7.19. The need for mid-tech is demonstrated, and the need for this type of employment space in close proximity to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Science Park has a distinct and unique set of characteristics, not available anywhere else at other research facilities in the sub-region and fully aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

7.20. CSPN would benefit from proximity to CSP and the long term custodianship of Trintiy College Cambridge, the later having made CSP one of the most successful Science Parks in Europe.

7.21. The socio-economic benefits in this location are illustrated, and links to Cambridge Regional College and wider educational institutions will benefit the next generation of innovators.

7.22. The sustainability credentials of delivering this site on a key transport route are clear, whilst the vision for a site with the highest environmental quality are demonstrated. Risks to NECAAP

7.23. Without significant interventions such as those which may be delivered by CSPN, a reduction in vehicle trips at CSP, sufficient to allow the delivery of the wider NECAAP will be difficult to deliver.

Conclusion

7.24. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.25. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed.

7.26. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower.

SUMMARY BELOW, REPRESENTATION DOCUMENT ATTACHED

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO HELAA SITE 40096

7. Summary & Conclusions

7.1. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.2. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required.

7.3. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower. Cambridge Science Park

7.4. Cambridge Science Park is the most sustainable location for further employment growth within Greater Cambridge, therefore the emerging JLP should reference the continued importance of Cambridge Science Park as an employment site.

7.5. Given the recognition of all other comparable science parks and employment destinations within the emerging JLP, and the recognition that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for development in Greater Cambridge.

7.6. The emerging JLP should therefore include the following policy: Policy S/CSP: New Employment Provision – Cambridge Science Park Appropriate proposals for employment development and redevelopment on Cambridge Science Park (as defined on the Policies Map) will be supported, where they enable the continued development of the Cambridge Cluster of high technology research and development companies. The need for Mid-Tech

7.7. As part of our Call for Sites submission we provided a 2019 report by Volterra (resubmitted for ease of reference), which clearly set out the floorspace requirements of mid-tech occupiers, to 2031 as ranging between c. 80,000 - 450,000 sqm of new floorspac.

7.8. A further Technical Note by Volterra is submitted with these representations setting out our feedback on the methodology and why we believe that the emerging mid-tech sector is not appropriately considered or acknowledged in these requirements, leading to a substantial under-provision of space which, if taken forward, will result in constraints on employment growth in the future. The importance of mid-tech and why it is not covered in the Employment Land Review are summarised as follows: • Mid-tech is not included in the ‘key sectors’ that are used to forecast employment need as these identify previously growing sectors, rather than future growth sectors; • The densities and use classes used to estimate future floorspace need may not be appropriate for the mid-tech sector.

7.9. We would urge Greater Cambridge to review the evidence with regard to mid-tech needs, and to engage with the Cambridge Science Park team to understand the needs of the sector.

7.10. We ask why has there been no consideration of mid-tech as a growth sector? Had this been done, it would be clear that (i) it has a large growth potential and (ii) it would benefit from clustering with CSP.

7.11. Our own analysis of the sectors which make up mid-tech highlights a very significant concentration of mid-tech in the local area. Why is this not acknowledged or given any weight?

7.12. The emerging JLP should recognise the importance of the research, development & innovation that occurs within the Cambridge economy and the need to accelerate the move to net-zero by supporting scientific innovation. The appraisal of CSPN

7.13. A review of the HELAA results for the other large employment sites identifies that there are other sites scoring similarly that are taken forward for Green Belt release.

7.14. Interrogating the two red scores for CSPN these relate to Landscape and the Strategic Highways Impact, the former has been considered on a strategic basis and takes no account of the local landscape (ie the impact of the A14) nor the landscape improvements included within the proposals. The Strategic Highways Impact is questioned for a scheme committed to no net increase.

7.15. However, despite CSP North being categorised as Red for its suitability, the site has been carried forward for the SA and an appraisal undertaken.

7.16. The site again scores similarly to other Green Belt sites taken forward for release. The SA then undertaken for the policies relating to those sites includes the policy mitigation, for example where landscape improvements are included within the policy, those sites are then afforded a more positive score than a site not taken through to policy wording. If this approach were undertaken for CSPN the site would score similarly well through the SA process.

7.17. The arguments made for other sites could also be said of CSP/CSPN but in the context of midtech rather than life sciences. CSP plays a recognised role in the clustering and growth of high-tech firms, supporting start-ups and scale-up businesses, but now needs space to enable mid-tech firms to continue to innovate and grow here. Whilst this growth could occur to a lesser scale on alternative sites outside the Green Belt, this would not benefit from the clustering with CSP and therefore the growth would be lower and less productive (the opportunities provided by a co-located Campus). CSP has, and CSPN will, be subject to significant private sector investment (just as valuable – arguably more so – than public investment) which in turn will deliver benefits to the public sector, such as playing a crucial role in delivering the sustainable travel objectives of the area.

7.18. It is therefore questioned as to why these arguments are recognised in the context of other Green Belt sites but not CSPN? Exceptional circumstances

7.19. The need for mid-tech is demonstrated, and the need for this type of employment space in close proximity to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Science Park has a distinct and unique set of characteristics, not available anywhere else at other research facilities in the sub-region and fully aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

7.20. CSPN would benefit from proximity to CSP and the long term custodianship of Trintiy College Cambridge, the later having made CSP one of the most successful Science Parks in Europe.

7.21. The socio-economic benefits in this location are illustrated, and links to Cambridge Regional College and wider educational institutions will benefit the next generation of innovators.

7.22. The sustainability credentials of delivering this site on a key transport route are clear, whilst the vision for a site with the highest environmental quality are demonstrated. Risks to NECAAP

7.23. Without significant interventions such as those which may be delivered by CSPN, a reduction in vehicle trips at CSP, sufficient to allow the delivery of the wider NECAAP will be difficult to deliver.

Conclusion

7.24. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.25. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed.

7.26. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower.

SUMMARY BELOW, REPRESENTATION DOCUMENT ATTACHED

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO HELAA SITE 40096

7. Summary & Conclusions

7.1. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.2. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required.

7.3. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower. Cambridge Science Park

7.4. Cambridge Science Park is the most sustainable location for further employment growth within Greater Cambridge, therefore the emerging JLP should reference the continued importance of Cambridge Science Park as an employment site.

7.5. Given the recognition of all other comparable science parks and employment destinations within the emerging JLP, and the recognition that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for development in Greater Cambridge.

7.6. The emerging JLP should therefore include the following policy: Policy S/CSP: New Employment Provision – Cambridge Science Park Appropriate proposals for employment development and redevelopment on Cambridge Science Park (as defined on the Policies Map) will be supported, where they enable the continued development of the Cambridge Cluster of high technology research and development companies. The need for Mid-Tech

7.7. As part of our Call for Sites submission we provided a 2019 report by Volterra (resubmitted for ease of reference), which clearly set out the floorspace requirements of mid-tech occupiers, to 2031 as ranging between c. 80,000 - 450,000 sqm of new floorspac.

7.8. A further Technical Note by Volterra is submitted with these representations setting out our feedback on the methodology and why we believe that the emerging mid-tech sector is not appropriately considered or acknowledged in these requirements, leading to a substantial under-provision of space which, if taken forward, will result in constraints on employment growth in the future. The importance of mid-tech and why it is not covered in the Employment Land Review are summarised as follows: • Mid-tech is not included in the ‘key sectors’ that are used to forecast employment need as these identify previously growing sectors, rather than future growth sectors; • The densities and use classes used to estimate future floorspace need may not be appropriate for the mid-tech sector.

7.9. We would urge Greater Cambridge to review the evidence with regard to mid-tech needs, and to engage with the Cambridge Science Park team to understand the needs of the sector.

7.10. We ask why has there been no consideration of mid-tech as a growth sector? Had this been done, it would be clear that (i) it has a large growth potential and (ii) it would benefit from clustering with CSP.

7.11. Our own analysis of the sectors which make up mid-tech highlights a very significant concentration of mid-tech in the local area. Why is this not acknowledged or given any weight?

7.12. The emerging JLP should recognise the importance of the research, development & innovation that occurs within the Cambridge economy and the need to accelerate the move to net-zero by supporting scientific innovation. The appraisal of CSPN

7.13. A review of the HELAA results for the other large employment sites identifies that there are other sites scoring similarly that are taken forward for Green Belt release.

7.14. Interrogating the two red scores for CSPN these relate to Landscape and the Strategic Highways Impact, the former has been considered on a strategic basis and takes no account of the local landscape (ie the impact of the A14) nor the landscape improvements included within the proposals. The Strategic Highways Impact is questioned for a scheme committed to no net increase.

7.15. However, despite CSP North being categorised as Red for its suitability, the site has been carried forward for the SA and an appraisal undertaken.

7.16. The site again scores similarly to other Green Belt sites taken forward for release. The SA then undertaken for the policies relating to those sites includes the policy mitigation, for example where landscape improvements are included within the policy, those sites are then afforded a more positive score than a site not taken through to policy wording. If this approach were undertaken for CSPN the site would score similarly well through the SA process.

7.17. The arguments made for other sites could also be said of CSP/CSPN but in the context of midtech rather than life sciences. CSP plays a recognised role in the clustering and growth of high-tech firms, supporting start-ups and scale-up businesses, but now needs space to enable mid-tech firms to continue to innovate and grow here. Whilst this growth could occur to a lesser scale on alternative sites outside the Green Belt, this would not benefit from the clustering with CSP and therefore the growth would be lower and less productive (the opportunities provided by a co-located Campus). CSP has, and CSPN will, be subject to significant private sector investment (just as valuable – arguably more so – than public investment) which in turn will deliver benefits to the public sector, such as playing a crucial role in delivering the sustainable travel objectives of the area.

7.18. It is therefore questioned as to why these arguments are recognised in the context of other Green Belt sites but not CSPN? Exceptional circumstances

7.19. The need for mid-tech is demonstrated, and the need for this type of employment space in close proximity to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Science Park has a distinct and unique set of characteristics, not available anywhere else at other research facilities in the sub-region and fully aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

7.20. CSPN would benefit from proximity to CSP and the long term custodianship of Trintiy College Cambridge, the later having made CSP one of the most successful Science Parks in Europe.

7.21. The socio-economic benefits in this location are illustrated, and links to Cambridge Regional College and wider educational institutions will benefit the next generation of innovators.

7.22. The sustainability credentials of delivering this site on a key transport route are clear, whilst the vision for a site with the highest environmental quality are demonstrated. Risks to NECAAP

7.23. Without significant interventions such as those which may be delivered by CSPN, a reduction in vehicle trips at CSP, sufficient to allow the delivery of the wider NECAAP will be difficult to deliver.

Conclusion

7.24. The exclusion of a draft allocation for CSPN at this stage is regrettable and it is TCC’s view that following a review of both the supporting evidence bases for the JLP and North East Cambridge Action Plan (NECAAP), that neither documents current aims are deliverable without CSPN being allocated.

7.25. The JLP also does not identify how Cambridge can meet its future job targets or identified need, particularly in the mid-tech sector. To achieve the transport, employment and socio economic aims of the JLP, and separately the NECAAP, a radical reappraisal and interrogation of its supporting evidence base is required. The evidence base is inconsistent and in places flawed.

7.26. An allocation for CSPN provides the supporting policy and development management framework to recognise and harness CSP’s continued evolution and regional role as a significant contributor to employment, research and development for the Cambridge and UK economy. Additionally, an allocation for CSPN provides the capacity to deliver on the JLP’s stated employment aims. Its allocation is also an exciting opportunity to keep Cambridge at the forefront of innovation, securing a mid-tech future for Cambridge, the region, and the UK as a Scientific Superpower.