Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The policy should recognise that some sites, given locational constraints, especially within the City, may not be able to deliver the enhancements envisaged by the policy direction, and as such, may not be viable.

We generally support the policy to improve tree canopy cover and the tree population. This notwithstanding, the proposed policy direction does not allow for site specific allocations or constraints, where a balanced planning judgement should be advocated. Moreover, the policy direction requires in the first and second bullets, the preservation, protection of both the tree population and tree canopy cover on sites, whilst the third bullet point seeks the protection of existing trees of value. In order to provide clarity, the policy direction should make it explicit that trees of value should be protected as opposed to the blanket protection of all tree cover on sites. This comment is made in the interests of securing sustainable development and making the most efficient use of sites, especially those that are previously developed, in sustainable locations. This in turn, will assist in reducing the amount of greenfield land released for housing and other uses.

Furthermore, the policy direction does not make allowance of the ‘planning balance’, and the policy directions and guidance provided elsewhere within the emerging Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance, for example making the most efficient use of land and providing development that maintains and enhances its surrounding character, including the street frontage design, highway network improvements.

Moreover, the policy direction is considered (site specific circumstances) to conflict with the policy direction requirements of Policy GP/QD, especially where sites are bordered by trees (value dependent)where for example, “buildings are required to be orientated to provide natural surveillance and maximise opportunities to create active ground floor uses”.

In this respect, it is considered that text as contained within the opening paragraph of Policy 71 of the adopted Local Plan should be carried across to the emerging policy.

We support the protection of open spaces. However, the policy direction should recognise that some open spaces sit directly adjacent to existing developed sites and ‘Other potential development Sites’ within the City Council’s ‘Opportunity Areas’.

These considerations should therefore be taken into account when considering harm to the character of open space where redevelopment of such sites is proposed, including applying balanced planning considerations and the presumption in favour of sustainable development (as required by the National Planning Policy Framework) and the public benefit that may arise from development.

Moreover, the policy direction should allow for the provision of development for schools, colleges and universities, within grounds used for these uses, where it meets a demonstrable educational need, as set out in the last paragraph of Policy 67 of the adopted Local Plan.

The policy direction should be applied on a site by site basis. Development proposals for enhanced, or rationalised facilities may already have open space or recreational facilities and capacity elsewhere.

We support creating healthy new development. To provide applicants with clarity moving forward, it may be helpful to outline which types of development and land use, including floorspace or dwelling number threshold will be required to prepare a Health Impact Assessment.

We support the policy direction, although it is considered that the direction should consider the capacity of existing facilities and capacity offered by educational establishments, to ensure that provision is not sought, where capacity exists elsewhere.

We support the policy direction. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, the emerging policy should make reference to ‘Making effective use of land’ and the importance, as set out in paragraph 120 (d) of promoting and supporting the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively (for example… building on car parks).

We support the general thrust of the policy direction. However, and consistent with comments made to other policy directions, it is considered that the policy direction will require the protection of trees of value and/or where the overriding planning balance of any development proposals outweighs their (trees) protection.

The policy direction should make reference to existing built form on site/s, especially in respect of impact on neighbouring buildings and spaces to ensure that the use of previously developed or underutilised sites in the urban area can be maximised in the interests of delivering sustainable development and reducing the reliance on greenfield land release.

Balanced planning considerations should be applied to the policy in the interests of delivering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Developments should not only be landscape led, but instead, should respond to design, land use and landscape considerations.