Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Jobs policies
74. It is clear that the draft Local Plan is focused on the continuation of ‘growth’ in the Cambridge area. CPRE
believes this is a mis-guided approach. The Greater Cambridge area is one which DHSS would consider to
have effectively full employment, with just the usual rotation of people out of work or seeking work.
Therefore, any growth in jobs will require inward migration to fill them. Inward migration creates pressure
on local housing availability and prices, and hence pressure for more house-building. It is an anti-climate
cycle.
75. As stated above CPRE would like to see the skills and resources of Cambridge-based organisations used to
encourage employment and redevelopment in other regions of the country where housing and water
capacity already exist and, in doing so, greenhouse gas emissions would be minimised.
76. CPRE are concerned by policies J/RE: Supporting the rural economy and J/AL: Protecting the best
agricultural land. We think both of these policies should be strengthened and properly enforced. The rural
economy can be diversified but at its core are farmers and their interests must be protected. For example,
the opening up of tracks and bridleways on the scale proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership will
cause increasing levels of damage to farms and farm equipment and increased security risk to farm
properties. It will make illegal activities such as hare-coursing easier and the police enforcement job
harder.
77. We think it is in the national interest to stop building on South Cambridgeshire farm land, most of which is
Grade 2 with some Grade 3a. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056 This land is already needed to assist the minimisation of food imports and it will be even more needed when the Fens
flood and national food supply is reduced by an estimated 20 – 25%.
78. According to the NFU, the Fens produce one third of England’s fresh vegetables, 20% of England’s potatoes,
more than 20% of England’s flowers and bulbs, 20% of England’s sugar beet as well as a significant
percentage of the country’s cereal, oilseed rape and protein crops. Agriculture in the Fens employs 80,000
people and produces £3bn pa for the rural economy.
79. The government recognises that the UK currently imports 45% of its food; however, some sources estimate
this to be as much as 80%. The Environmental Audit Committee has already warned government that the
UK cannot continue to rely on food imports on this scale because climate change is going to damage foodgrowing areas further south.
80. Building on good Cambridgeshire farm land just does not make sense. There may be short-term economic
pressures to do so but it is not in the national interest.
81. CPRE supports Policy J/PB: Protecting existing business space and Policy J/RW: Enabling remote working.
We also recognise that local affordable workspace can reduce commuting and increase local employment
opportunities, Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries. We are concerned to ensure
that existing buildings which could be used for employment are not demolished to make way for maximum levels of housing and maximum profit for developers as we are aware has occurred in some districts.
82. With respect to Policy J/RC: Retail and centres, CPRE are aware of increasing levels of internet shopping
and decreasing footfall in retail centres. This may lead to re-purposing for housing under “Permitted
Development”. CPRE is believes that all such development should be brought back under local authority building control and not be the appalling low-quality free-for-all that it is now.

Jobs policies
74. It is clear that the draft Local Plan is focused on the continuation of ‘growth’ in the Cambridge area. CPRE
believes this is a mis-guided approach. The Greater Cambridge area is one which DHSS would consider to
have effectively full employment, with just the usual rotation of people out of work or seeking work.
Therefore, any growth in jobs will require inward migration to fill them. Inward migration creates pressure
on local housing availability and prices, and hence pressure for more house-building. It is an anti-climate
cycle.
75. As stated above CPRE would like to see the skills and resources of Cambridge-based organisations used to
encourage employment and redevelopment in other regions of the country where housing and water
capacity already exist and, in doing so, greenhouse gas emissions would be minimised.
76. CPRE are concerned by policies J/RE: Supporting the rural economy and J/AL: Protecting the best
agricultural land. We think both of these policies should be strengthened and properly enforced. The rural
economy can be diversified but at its core are farmers and their interests must be protected. For example,
the opening up of tracks and bridleways on the scale proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership will
cause increasing levels of damage to farms and farm equipment and increased security risk to farm
properties. It will make illegal activities such as hare-coursing easier and the police enforcement job
harder.
77. We think it is in the national interest to stop building on South Cambridgeshire farm land, most of which is
Grade 2 with some Grade 3a. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056 This land is already needed to assist the minimisation of food imports and it will be even more needed when the Fens
flood and national food supply is reduced by an estimated 20 – 25%.
78. According to the NFU, the Fens produce one third of England’s fresh vegetables, 20% of England’s potatoes,
more than 20% of England’s flowers and bulbs, 20% of England’s sugar beet as well as a significant
percentage of the country’s cereal, oilseed rape and protein crops. Agriculture in the Fens employs 80,000
people and produces £3bn pa for the rural economy.
79. The government recognises that the UK currently imports 45% of its food; however, some sources estimate
this to be as much as 80%. The Environmental Audit Committee has already warned government that the
UK cannot continue to rely on food imports on this scale because climate change is going to damage foodgrowing areas further south.
80. Building on good Cambridgeshire farm land just does not make sense. There may be short-term economic
pressures to do so but it is not in the national interest.
81. CPRE supports Policy J/PB: Protecting existing business space and Policy J/RW: Enabling remote working.
We also recognise that local affordable workspace can reduce commuting and increase local employment
opportunities, Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries. We are concerned to ensure
that existing buildings which could be used for employment are not demolished to make way for maximum levels of housing and maximum profit for developers as we are aware has occurred in some districts.
82. With respect to Policy J/RC: Retail and centres, CPRE are aware of increasing levels of internet shopping
and decreasing footfall in retail centres. This may lead to re-purposing for housing under “Permitted
Development”. CPRE is believes that all such development should be brought back under local authority building control and not be the appalling low-quality free-for-all that it is now.

Jobs policies
74. It is clear that the draft Local Plan is focused on the continuation of ‘growth’ in the Cambridge area. CPRE
believes this is a mis-guided approach. The Greater Cambridge area is one which DHSS would consider to
have effectively full employment, with just the usual rotation of people out of work or seeking work.
Therefore, any growth in jobs will require inward migration to fill them. Inward migration creates pressure
on local housing availability and prices, and hence pressure for more house-building. It is an anti-climate
cycle.
75. As stated above CPRE would like to see the skills and resources of Cambridge-based organisations used to
encourage employment and redevelopment in other regions of the country where housing and water
capacity already exist and, in doing so, greenhouse gas emissions would be minimised.
76. CPRE are concerned by policies J/RE: Supporting the rural economy and J/AL: Protecting the best
agricultural land. We think both of these policies should be strengthened and properly enforced. The rural
economy can be diversified but at its core are farmers and their interests must be protected. For example,
the opening up of tracks and bridleways on the scale proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership will
cause increasing levels of damage to farms and farm equipment and increased security risk to farm
properties. It will make illegal activities such as hare-coursing easier and the police enforcement job
harder.
77. We think it is in the national interest to stop building on South Cambridgeshire farm land, most of which is
Grade 2 with some Grade 3a. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056 This land is already needed to assist the minimisation of food imports and it will be even more needed when the Fens
flood and national food supply is reduced by an estimated 20 – 25%.
78. According to the NFU, the Fens produce one third of England’s fresh vegetables, 20% of England’s potatoes,
more than 20% of England’s flowers and bulbs, 20% of England’s sugar beet as well as a significant
percentage of the country’s cereal, oilseed rape and protein crops. Agriculture in the Fens employs 80,000
people and produces £3bn pa for the rural economy.
79. The government recognises that the UK currently imports 45% of its food; however, some sources estimate
this to be as much as 80%. The Environmental Audit Committee has already warned government that the
UK cannot continue to rely on food imports on this scale because climate change is going to damage foodgrowing areas further south.
80. Building on good Cambridgeshire farm land just does not make sense. There may be short-term economic
pressures to do so but it is not in the national interest.
81. CPRE supports Policy J/PB: Protecting existing business space and Policy J/RW: Enabling remote working.
We also recognise that local affordable workspace can reduce commuting and increase local employment
opportunities, Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries. We are concerned to ensure
that existing buildings which could be used for employment are not demolished to make way for maximum levels of housing and maximum profit for developers as we are aware has occurred in some districts.
82. With respect to Policy J/RC: Retail and centres, CPRE are aware of increasing levels of internet shopping
and decreasing footfall in retail centres. This may lead to re-purposing for housing under “Permitted
Development”. CPRE is believes that all such development should be brought back under local authority building control and not be the appalling low-quality free-for-all that it is now.

Jobs policies
74. It is clear that the draft Local Plan is focused on the continuation of ‘growth’ in the Cambridge area. CPRE
believes this is a mis-guided approach. The Greater Cambridge area is one which DHSS would consider to
have effectively full employment, with just the usual rotation of people out of work or seeking work.
Therefore, any growth in jobs will require inward migration to fill them. Inward migration creates pressure
on local housing availability and prices, and hence pressure for more house-building. It is an anti-climate
cycle.
75. As stated above CPRE would like to see the skills and resources of Cambridge-based organisations used to
encourage employment and redevelopment in other regions of the country where housing and water
capacity already exist and, in doing so, greenhouse gas emissions would be minimised.
76. CPRE are concerned by policies J/RE: Supporting the rural economy and J/AL: Protecting the best
agricultural land. We think both of these policies should be strengthened and properly enforced. The rural
economy can be diversified but at its core are farmers and their interests must be protected. For example,
the opening up of tracks and bridleways on the scale proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership will
cause increasing levels of damage to farms and farm equipment and increased security risk to farm
properties. It will make illegal activities such as hare-coursing easier and the police enforcement job
harder.
77. We think it is in the national interest to stop building on South Cambridgeshire farm land, most of which is
Grade 2 with some Grade 3a. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056 This land is already needed to assist the minimisation of food imports and it will be even more needed when the Fens
flood and national food supply is reduced by an estimated 20 – 25%.
78. According to the NFU, the Fens produce one third of England’s fresh vegetables, 20% of England’s potatoes,
more than 20% of England’s flowers and bulbs, 20% of England’s sugar beet as well as a significant
percentage of the country’s cereal, oilseed rape and protein crops. Agriculture in the Fens employs 80,000
people and produces £3bn pa for the rural economy.
79. The government recognises that the UK currently imports 45% of its food; however, some sources estimate
this to be as much as 80%. The Environmental Audit Committee has already warned government that the
UK cannot continue to rely on food imports on this scale because climate change is going to damage foodgrowing areas further south.
80. Building on good Cambridgeshire farm land just does not make sense. There may be short-term economic
pressures to do so but it is not in the national interest.
81. CPRE supports Policy J/PB: Protecting existing business space and Policy J/RW: Enabling remote working.
We also recognise that local affordable workspace can reduce commuting and increase local employment
opportunities, Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries. We are concerned to ensure
that existing buildings which could be used for employment are not demolished to make way for maximum levels of housing and maximum profit for developers as we are aware has occurred in some districts.
82. With respect to Policy J/RC: Retail and centres, CPRE are aware of increasing levels of internet shopping
and decreasing footfall in retail centres. This may lead to re-purposing for housing under “Permitted
Development”. CPRE is believes that all such development should be brought back under local authority building control and not be the appalling low-quality free-for-all that it is now.

Jobs policies
74. It is clear that the draft Local Plan is focused on the continuation of ‘growth’ in the Cambridge area. CPRE
believes this is a mis-guided approach. The Greater Cambridge area is one which DHSS would consider to
have effectively full employment, with just the usual rotation of people out of work or seeking work.
Therefore, any growth in jobs will require inward migration to fill them. Inward migration creates pressure
on local housing availability and prices, and hence pressure for more house-building. It is an anti-climate
cycle.
75. As stated above CPRE would like to see the skills and resources of Cambridge-based organisations used to
encourage employment and redevelopment in other regions of the country where housing and water
capacity already exist and, in doing so, greenhouse gas emissions would be minimised.
76. CPRE are concerned by policies J/RE: Supporting the rural economy and J/AL: Protecting the best
agricultural land. We think both of these policies should be strengthened and properly enforced. The rural
economy can be diversified but at its core are farmers and their interests must be protected. For example,
the opening up of tracks and bridleways on the scale proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership will
cause increasing levels of damage to farms and farm equipment and increased security risk to farm
properties. It will make illegal activities such as hare-coursing easier and the police enforcement job
harder.
77. We think it is in the national interest to stop building on South Cambridgeshire farm land, most of which is
Grade 2 with some Grade 3a. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/127056 This land is already needed to assist the minimisation of food imports and it will be even more needed when the Fens
flood and national food supply is reduced by an estimated 20 – 25%.
78. According to the NFU, the Fens produce one third of England’s fresh vegetables, 20% of England’s potatoes,
more than 20% of England’s flowers and bulbs, 20% of England’s sugar beet as well as a significant
percentage of the country’s cereal, oilseed rape and protein crops. Agriculture in the Fens employs 80,000
people and produces £3bn pa for the rural economy.
79. The government recognises that the UK currently imports 45% of its food; however, some sources estimate
this to be as much as 80%. The Environmental Audit Committee has already warned government that the
UK cannot continue to rely on food imports on this scale because climate change is going to damage foodgrowing areas further south.
80. Building on good Cambridgeshire farm land just does not make sense. There may be short-term economic
pressures to do so but it is not in the national interest.
81. CPRE supports Policy J/PB: Protecting existing business space and Policy J/RW: Enabling remote working.
We also recognise that local affordable workspace can reduce commuting and increase local employment
opportunities, Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries. We are concerned to ensure
that existing buildings which could be used for employment are not demolished to make way for maximum levels of housing and maximum profit for developers as we are aware has occurred in some districts.
82. With respect to Policy J/RC: Retail and centres, CPRE are aware of increasing levels of internet shopping
and decreasing footfall in retail centres. This may lead to re-purposing for housing under “Permitted
Development”. CPRE is believes that all such development should be brought back under local authority building control and not be the appalling low-quality free-for-all that it is now.

Homes policies
83. As already expressed above, CPRE’s concern is that this draft Plan includes house-building far in excess of
necessary or statutory requirements. It appears to be based on a growth agenda which in turn is based
upon encouraging unsustainable inward migration to the area.
84. CPRE believes that the greatest housing need is for affordable homes and would like to see Policy H/AH:
Affordable housing, strengthened and enforced as far as possible. We would like to see increasing
numbers of small sites developed with affordable housing included.
85. CPRE has some concerns about the use of Policy H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing, because in
one district we know of, the exception site rules have been used to approve major, market led,
developments posing as community-led exception sites, when they contain the minimum requirement of
affordable housing. We trust that South Cambridgeshire will not countenance this deceptive approach
through the application of this policy.

Homes policies
83. As already expressed above, CPRE’s concern is that this draft Plan includes house-building far in excess of
necessary or statutory requirements. It appears to be based on a growth agenda which in turn is based
upon encouraging unsustainable inward migration to the area.
84. CPRE believes that the greatest housing need is for affordable homes and would like to see Policy H/AH:
Affordable housing, strengthened and enforced as far as possible. We would like to see increasing
numbers of small sites developed with affordable housing included.
85. CPRE has some concerns about the use of Policy H/ES: Exception sites for affordable housing, because in
one district we know of, the exception site rules have been used to approve major, market led,
developments posing as community-led exception sites, when they contain the minimum requirement of
affordable housing. We trust that South Cambridgeshire will not countenance this deceptive approach
through the application of this policy.

Infrastructure policies
86. CPRE are very concerned about current infrastructure proposals for the Cambridge region and the damage and cost they are likely to cause.
87. CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.
88. CPRE believes that the current local government structure in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with
four different authorities claiming responsibility for some aspects of transport planning and delivery,
coupled with the divided responsibility for rail infrastructure between Network Rail and East West Rail
Company Ltd, prevents any form of joined-up thinking about transport.
89. CPRE believes that all public transport planning in the county should be practically and actually brought
under the control of the Combined Authority with delivery by the County Council, National Highways and
Network Rail as appropriate.
90. CPRE are particularly concerned by the activities of the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). Its
proposed busways will be a disaster for the countryside and communities and an expensive duplication of
facilities that could be provided by road and rail using mostly existing infrastructure. The responsibilities of
this body should be re-allocated to those identified in paragraph 89 above in order that the GCP can be
disbanded.
91. CPRE are concerned that East-West Rail has failed to consider local transport needs in its planning and as a
consequence is currently following a route in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire which will maximise
damage to the countryside, deliver the least useful local transport facility and not integrate well with the
main rail network. Local MPs have taken up this case with government but so far to no avail. The danger is
that the Treasury will halt the project because of lack of return on investment and Cambridge will be left
without the core of what could have been a climate-friendly metro service.
92. There is a desperate need for an integrated transport plan for the whole county and the current approach
will not realise one.
93. CPRE supports Policy I/DI: Digital infrastructure.

Infrastructure policies
86. CPRE are very concerned about current infrastructure proposals for the Cambridge region and the damage and cost they are likely to cause.
87. CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.
88. CPRE believes that the current local government structure in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with
four different authorities claiming responsibility for some aspects of transport planning and delivery,
coupled with the divided responsibility for rail infrastructure between Network Rail and East West Rail
Company Ltd, prevents any form of joined-up thinking about transport.
89. CPRE believes that all public transport planning in the county should be practically and actually brought
under the control of the Combined Authority with delivery by the County Council, National Highways and
Network Rail as appropriate.
90. CPRE are particularly concerned by the activities of the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). Its
proposed busways will be a disaster for the countryside and communities and an expensive duplication of
facilities that could be provided by road and rail using mostly existing infrastructure. The responsibilities of
this body should be re-allocated to those identified in paragraph 89 above in order that the GCP can be
disbanded.
91. CPRE are concerned that East-West Rail has failed to consider local transport needs in its planning and as a
consequence is currently following a route in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire which will maximise
damage to the countryside, deliver the least useful local transport facility and not integrate well with the
main rail network. Local MPs have taken up this case with government but so far to no avail. The danger is
that the Treasury will halt the project because of lack of return on investment and Cambridge will be left
without the core of what could have been a climate-friendly metro service.
92. There is a desperate need for an integrated transport plan for the whole county and the current approach
will not realise one.
93. CPRE supports Policy I/DI: Digital infrastructure.

Infrastructure policies
86. CPRE are very concerned about current infrastructure proposals for the Cambridge region and the damage and cost they are likely to cause.
87. CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.
88. CPRE believes that the current local government structure in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with
four different authorities claiming responsibility for some aspects of transport planning and delivery,
coupled with the divided responsibility for rail infrastructure between Network Rail and East West Rail
Company Ltd, prevents any form of joined-up thinking about transport.
89. CPRE believes that all public transport planning in the county should be practically and actually brought
under the control of the Combined Authority with delivery by the County Council, National Highways and
Network Rail as appropriate.
90. CPRE are particularly concerned by the activities of the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). Its
proposed busways will be a disaster for the countryside and communities and an expensive duplication of
facilities that could be provided by road and rail using mostly existing infrastructure. The responsibilities of
this body should be re-allocated to those identified in paragraph 89 above in order that the GCP can be
disbanded.
91. CPRE are concerned that East-West Rail has failed to consider local transport needs in its planning and as a
consequence is currently following a route in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire which will maximise
damage to the countryside, deliver the least useful local transport facility and not integrate well with the
main rail network. Local MPs have taken up this case with government but so far to no avail. The danger is
that the Treasury will halt the project because of lack of return on investment and Cambridge will be left
without the core of what could have been a climate-friendly metro service.
92. There is a desperate need for an integrated transport plan for the whole county and the current approach
will not realise one.
93. CPRE supports Policy I/DI: Digital infrastructure.