Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The First Proposals plan is heavily reliant on the delivery of a handful of strategic developments - particularly large and complex sites which on average take 5-8 years for the first home to be delivered. To ensure that housing delivery doesn't stall, and the affordability crisis worsened as a result, a pipeline of smaller developments which can deliver homes quickly will be needed in the short to medium term.

The proposed policy approach will require continual updating of the self and custom build register(s) to reflect the permissions that have been granted with a self- or custom-build element. Close monitoring on sales and completions will also be necessary in case plots earmarked for self- or custom-build revert to market dwellings at the end of the prescribed 12-month marketing period.
It is also unclear if the current registers for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are to be combined, with delivery of plots across the wider area. This would not be logical since many prospective self-builders will have preferred locations and few will have a search area as wide as Greater Cambridge. A more focused policy, perhaps split across the two administrative areas, would encourage the development of self-build plots in the right locations to meet local demand. For example, if all the need for plots was in and around Cambridge, it would not make sense to burden developers in other parts of the area.

The bold ambitions of draft policy GP/PP are supported - particularly the proposed use of design Guides/Codes to set out the design expectations for a particular area. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework. For example, the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources and lifespan. Schemes which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.

The bold ambitions of draft policy GP/PP are supported - particularly the proposed use of design Guides/Codes to set out the design expectations for a particular area. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework. For example, the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources and lifespan. Schemes which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.

The adoption of a green infrastructure standard should be a recommendation, not a requirement. Developments should not be opposed where all reasonable steps have been taken to protect and incorporate green infrastructure.
Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in a supplementary planning document (SPD).

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. To prevent stagnation and the further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the 'open countryside'. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Whilst sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm. Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal. For example, rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality scheme with extensive landscaping where it would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
A carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. To prevent stagnation and the further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the 'open countryside'. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Whilst sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm. Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal. For example, rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality scheme with extensive landscaping where it would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
A carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.