Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The Policy for Cambridge East identifies that the site was originally identified for development in 2003 and the adopted 2018 Local Plans changed the allocation to an approach that safeguarded land for future development. This is a significant period of time for the site to come to fruition. There appears to still be some uncertainty in respect of the timing of the relocation of the airport related uses that is required before development of the site commences. The Local Plan suggests that the additional homes and jobs envisaged for the site are proposed to be located on the safeguarded land and delivery of these homes and jobs would start post 2030 to follow the relocation of the airport activities. It is considered that there may be further unforeseen delays in respect of the relocation of the airport and that this may affect the delivery of housing within the plan period. The Council should therefore look at providing more of a range of smaller and medium sites that have the ability to come forward at a faster rate than strategic sites of this size.

The housing and employment allocations that are being proposed to be carried forward from the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 should be reviewed. If they have not already been developed since the Local Plans were adopted there may be some issues in terms of their viability. As such the Local Planning Authority should not be reliant on these sites within their housing supply figures.

Greater Cambridge already have three new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield that it is envisaged will continue to be developed over the plan period and beyond. No objection is raised to this approach. Concern is however raised in respect of whether there is a genuine need for a further new settlement to be created at Cambourne in the 2030’s particularly as there have been serious adverse landscape impacts identified at this location. It is considered that a more suitable approach would be to provide a better balance across the Plan area with more development being apportioned to the rural area. Without a redistribution of housing this would lead to an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of mixed and balanced communities This could lead to a trend of the vitality and long-term future of rural communities being threatened.

It is questioned whether it is the correct approach to locate further housing at Cambourne or whether the LPA should consider a redistribution of housing to provide a better balance across the Plan area.

No objection is raised to the continued development at the existing new towns. In particular it is considered that the Waterbeach new town offers excellent opportunities for linked trips to the existing settlement and further growth should be located here to ensure the long-term vitality of the settlement continues.

Two new housing sites have been identified within the Rural southern cluster, one of which is in the Green Belt. It is welcomed that the Local Planning Authority have identified exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release within the plan area. It is considered however, that the LPA have not gone far enough in releasing Green Belt land to meet the demanding housing requirements for the Greater Cambridge area. It is considered that additional land should be identified in the rural area for moderate levels of Green Belt release to ensure that the viability of the rural areas within the plan area are protected and enhanced.

Objection is raised in respect of the Councils’ policy on the ‘rest of the rural area’. It is considered that there is insufficient consideration being given to the long-term viability of rural settlements and their resident population. In order for Greater Cambridge to deliver a robust development strategy that meets the needs of its residents adequately, it is necessary for the LPA to provide an adequate quantum of development in the rural settlements. By adopting the approach currently proposed of limited levels of development being allocated in the rest of the rural area this would result in an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of balanced and mixed communities. As currently drafted, the policy approach is to propose some development in and around villages that have good transport links and services while in smaller villages only small-scale infill development is envisaged. This could lead to a trend of rural communities being threatened. New affordable and market housing should be allocated to rural settlements to ensure their long-term viability is protected. Investment should also be put into improving public transport links in the rural area rather than penalising those areas further where links are not up to standard.

The following sites have been promoted through previous iterations of the plan and through the Call for Sites process and it is considered that they should be allocated for development:
Land at Dry Drayton Road, Oakington (ref 51617)
Land at Fen End Willingham (ref 40469)

It is considered that it is important for Greater Cambridge to try and transition to net zero carbon by 2050 but the Climate Change policy needs to be realistic and deliverable. The strategy of directing development to areas that have the least climate impact is recognised as a sustainable approach, nonetheless concern is raised in respect of the approach to dealing with villages in the emerging Local Plan where only low levels of new homes are proposed. It is considered that the Council should consider improving public transport links to the rural areas to ensure that the rural population have a real alternative to the private car.
The Council’s policy on Climate Change is not considered to be achievable or deliverable and it is considered that it runs counter to advice in NPPF paragraph 16 (b) that states that Plans should be prepared positively in a way that is aspirational but deliverable.

The current wording of the text to ‘Net Zero Carbon Buildings – operational emissions’ is considered to be too technical and not clear and will be difficult to work in practice. This is contrary to paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF that requires Plans to contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous.