Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

First Proposals Text: ‘What will this policy do? - Identify Cambourne as a broad location for longer term strategic scale growth as an expansion to Cambourne, and will provide continued guidance for the development of the existing allocation at Cambourne West’

Response: It was clear from the outset of the last Local Plan that it was the Planning Authority's intention to develop Cambourne into a ‘ new town by stealth'. StopBAD and Bourn Parish Council levelled this challenge during all stages of the consultation, and at the Examination in Public, and our objections were dismissed. It's now an irrefutable fact that we were right. It frustrates us that the Planning Authority misrepresented their intentions and it makes it difficult for us to have any faith in the public consultations undertaken by the Planning Authority. The term 'strategic scale growth' is unacceptably vague and suggests a licence to do whatever the Planning Authority pleases. As evidence of the lack of transparency for the development of Cambourne we reference https://www.scambs.gov.uk/planning/new-communities/cambourne/about-cambourne/ The conduct of the Planning Authority towards the existing historic villages of this area of South Cambridgeshire has been questionable since (and before) the initiation of the previous Local Plan process. The outcome of the Local Plan process makes this clear. The great majority of local residents in the affected villages around Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne objected to both settlements yet they went ahead. Policy S/CB marks a new low in the Planning Authority’s understanding of local concerns. In summary it shows that a new town of 25,000 inhabitants and nearly 12,000 houses can be built alongside villages that strongly object as long as the creeping, incremental nature of the development is concealed. It’s basically development 'death by a thousand cuts'.

First Proposals Text: ‘Proposed policy direction - The policy will set out the intention to identify Cambourne as a broad location for future growth in the 2030’s to respond to the opportunity that will be provided by the proposed East West Rail that includes a station at Cambourne. The overall aim for an expanded Cambourne is to provide sufficient critical mass to perform the following role as a:
• Well-connected place through high quality public transport, cycling and walking facilities
• South Cambridgeshire town for the 21st century
• Growing employment centre to provide local opportunities for its residents and nearby communities
• A place that meets the day to day needs of its residents.’

Response: This proposed Policy Direction is proof positive of the Planning Authority’s deception. Cambourne is expected to be a 'South Cambridgeshire town for the 21st century’; it needs to expand to provide critical mass. When did this become the aspiration? What involvement did local people have in setting this aspiration? Who is setting the agenda here? It certainly isn’t local people.

First Proposals Text: ‘Future development at Cambourne will need to consider:
• How to integrate with and maximise the opportunity provided by East West Rail.
• The role of the new development in Cambourne as a place, and how it can contribute towards the achievement of net zero carbon.
•The relationship with Cambourne and Bourn Airfield, and how to make the area more sustainable, through the mix of services, employment and transport opportunities offered by the area as whole.
• The economic role of the place, and which employment sectors would benefit from the location to support the needs of the Greater Cambridge economy.
• How the place will develop over time, and the infrastructure needed to support different stages during its development.
• Making effective connections within the new development and with Cambourne for public transport and active travel, as well as connections to surrounding villages so they can also benefit.
• Be structured around and have local and district centres that can meet people’s day to day needs within walking distance, including responding to changing retail and working patterns
• How it can help deliver the Western Gateway Green Infrastructure project, and in doing so positively engage with its landscape setting, as well as recreation and biodiversity enhancement opportunities such as woodland planting.
• Take opportunities to reduce flood risk to surrounding areas, that take innovative solutions to the management and reuse of water.

The following existing allocation for a new mixed-use development at Cambourne West is proposed to be carried forward, but to be expanded to include the full extent of the planning permission:
• SS/8: Cambourne West

A map showing the boundary of this allocation can be found at the end of this document.’

Response: We are concerned that the considerations for the future development of Cambourne make no mention whatsoever of mitigating the impact on landscape and the character of older, more established, communities. All the considerations relate to the future. There is nothing at all in this topic that talks about preservation, or sensitivity to what predates Cambourne. There are no comments about enhancing the existing setting. The no reference to the inevitable traffic generation that an-ever expanding Cambourne will generate. Are these not important considerations?

First Proposals Text: ‘Why is this policy needed? - Cambourne has been identified as the location for a new railway station as part of the East West Rail scheme to connect Oxford with Cambridge and potentially beyond. Along with the Cambourne to Cambridge public transport scheme being brought forward by the Greater Cambridge Partnership, it provides an opportunity to consider how further development could make the most of these connections, but also make the overall Cambourne area a more sustainable place. National planning policy says that plan making should look to the opportunities provided by major new infrastructure.

It is important to recognise that our evidence says that large scale development at Cambourne would have landscape impacts and that these would be hard to address. However, when considered in the context of the significant economic and carbon benefits of locating development at the proposed new rail station at Cambourne, it is considered that the benefits are likely to outweigh the level of landscape harm. This will be explored further as part of preparing the draft local plan, but the Councils are clear that development will need to be a landscape led scheme to minimise impacts in the wider landscape and to have a focus both on place making for the expanded town, and delivery of the wider vision for green infrastructure set out in the plan, including supporting the objectives for Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative 8: Western gateway multifunctional Green Infrastructure corridors (see BG/GI Green Infrastructure).’

Response: The Policy finally acknowledges that 'It is important to recognise that our evidence says that large scale development at Cambourne would have landscape impacts and that these would be hard to address.’ But in the next sentence the Policy brushes aside these concerns and implies that landscape impacts are a necessary casualty that are trumped by carbon benefits. This is a particularly difficult pill for Bourn Parish Council to swallow given the levels of carbon generation that the Planning Authority caused when they conceived of Cambourne (but obliged its residents to travel to work by car). The double standards are clear. If we are now justifying development based on carbon benefits then there should be more development in the Green Belt where walking and cycling to Cambridge become real options for commuters.

We’re not blessed with a great deal of quality landscape in South Cambridgeshire. The Planning Authority now want to build over what little landscape of note we have. Bourn Valley, south of Cambourne, must surely be protected from development. The very notion that carbon benefits are preferred over landscape harm has to be the worst argument to justify development that we have ever heard and will have environmentalists pulling their hair out. In our opinion, this element of the Policy needs serious review.

First Proposals Text: ‘Identifying the area for additional development should not simply be about delivering more housing. It needs to explore how this area including Cambourne and Bourn Airfield and nearby villages will function as a place, and its relationship with Cambridge, in order to enhance its sustainability. This means looking at a mix of services, facilities and employment in the area, and planning new development to enhance the role of the place. It means looking at connections between places within the area, so these opportunities are shared and reliance on private car travel is reduced.’

Response: We’re not sure what point this section is trying to make. It sounds vaguely aspirational. What exactly does 'enhance the role of the place’ mean? This part of the Policy is far too vague.

First Proposals Text: National planning policy allows for longer term growth in plans to be identified as broad locations, where the exact quantity, locations and design will be defined through future plan reviews. Given that the East West Rail route and station location at Cambourne have yet to be confirmed, it Is too early to identify a specific development area and amount of development.

Response: This is the section of the policy that most concerns us. You say that the identification of broad locations is allowed by National Planning Policy. What is meant by broad locations? South Cambridgeshire is a broad location but we suspect you mean growth around Cambourne and, worryingly, in areas around Cambourne that would have landscape impacts. Why is the policy so vague?

You imply that the Policy is intentionally vague until the station location for Cambourne is determined by EWR. Several sites in the search for sites process would appear to be in play - sites to the north and south of Cambourne. Which of these is to be developed appears to be within the gift of EWR. Wherever the station is built will determine where 1950 houses will be built. The Policy is worryingly vague and Bourn Parish Council will object to the inclusion of this Policy in the new Local Plan until such time as there is clarity on where the 1950 houses are to be built.

First Proposals Text: What consultation have we done on this issue? - There was no specific consultation on this issue in the First Conversation consultation, but we did ask for views about focusing development on transport corridors. There was broad support for this approach, and focusing development at public transport nodes.

Response: We will expect there to be a consultation on this specify Policy. We do not accept that there is broad support for this Policy based on the broad support there was for focusing development on transport nodes in the First Conversation consultation. There are too many specific issues related to further development Cambourne to draw that conclusion.

First Proposals Text: ‘What alternatives did we consider? No Policy alternatives to allocating development around Cambourne were considered as part of consideration of alternative Strategic Spatial Options.

Response: Why was no consideration given to the alternatives to allocating development around Cambourne? This ommission must call into question the thoroughness of the process.

First Proposals Text: Supporting topic paper and evidence studies
Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Topic paper 1: Strategy


Response: We’d like draw the Team's attention to a quote from the Local Plan's Policy Direction. 'We propose to reinforce the distinctive character of our city, towns and villages through developing sites that can be well-integrated with existing communities. Using less land for development reduces our carbon emissions, and allows more space for nature and wildlife..’

We will be most interested in how these goals are applied to the proposed development around Cambourne. How will the Planning Authority reinforce the distinctive character of the villages around Cambourne? How will they develop sites that integrate with existing communities? How will they allow more space for wildlife and nature?