Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the general principles. We note that larger scale developments are being focused on the edge of Cambridge to the north west, north and north east of the city centre and new settlements such as Cambourne, Northstowe and Waterbeach (Figure 4), with limited additional housing in the immediate area of Trumpington.

With respect to Fig. 4, we are critical of the omission of the housing which is proposed as part of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus development: it is very misleading to omit this (c. 5000 homes, Site 056).

The Trumpington Residents' Association is very concerned about the relationship between jobs and homes.

We have a strong concern about jobs led growth without a practical limit other than market delivery. This is a strategic issue for the whole of the Plan, including the Plan Themes of 3.1 Climate Change, 3.2 Biodiversity and green spaces and 3.3 Wellbeing and social inclusion, as well as the Development Strategy which immediately follows.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the policy's approach of placing limits on further development within and on the edge of Cambridge within the proposed Plan, apart from already approved sites and specific areas to the north west, north and north east of the city centre, but not around Trumpington (page 32). We support the statement that housing needs alone do not provide the 'exceptional circumstances' to justify removing land from the Green Belt on the edge of the city (page 39). We support the emphasis on growth in new settlements (page 40).

We refer again to the sites to which we had objected in the Call for Sites process and our strong support for the omission of most of those sites from the proposed developments within the Plan.

Our greatest remaining concern is site 056 (the so-called 'Cambridge South'), one part of which was between Hauxton Road and Shelford Road to the south of Addenbrooke's Road and another part adjacent to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, land which has been partly incorporated in Policy S/CBC (see S/CBC and the Development Strategy Topic Paper, pages 129-136).

Local sites included in the Call for Sites process:

131: Land west of Trumpington Road: 540 homes
592: Clare College Sports Ground, Bentley Road, Cambridge: 110 homes
091: Telephone Exchange and Car Park, Long Road, Cambridge: 100 homes (see R14, page 72)
089: Cambridge 'D' Telephone Exchange, High Street, Trumpington: 50 homes
160: Trumpington Park and Ride site, Trumpington: 290 homes
042: Land north of M11 and west of Hauxton Road, Trumpington: 750 new homes
056: Land south of Addenbrooke's Road and east of M11 plus land south of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, 'Cambridge South': revised proposal for c. 5000 homes and 436,000 sqm of employment space, incorporating the original sites 132, 590, 127, 129, 128;
132: Land south of Addenbrooke's Road, Trumpington: 280 homes (see Site 056)
590: The Davey Field, Cambridge Rd, Great Shelford: 72 to 87 new homes (see Site 056)
398: Land off Cambridge Road, Gt Shelford: c. 120 homes
099: Land east of Cabbage Moor, Great Shelford: 400 homes
054: 144 Cambridge Road, Great Shelford: 25 homes
488: Land at 6 Cabbage Moor, Great Shelford: 5 homes
514: Land off Cabbage Moor, Great Shelford: 70 homes
subtotal: c. 500 homes
603: Addenbrookes Hospital Extension [part of Cambridge Biomedical Campus, phase 2]
127: Land at Granham's Road, Cambridge and Great Shelford: 990 houses (see Site 056)
129: Land south of Babraham Road, Shelford Bottom, Cambridge and Great Shelford: 880 homes (see Site 056)
128: Land south of Worts Causeway, Cambridge and Great Shelford: 490 homes (see Site 056)

If Trumpington had been identified as one of the 'edge of Cambridge' locations, this would have resulted in even more housing for this area. Another option of large scale building in villages south of Trumpington would have resulted in even worse traffic congestion in Trumpington, as people commuted into Cambridge or to the Park & Ride sites.

We have a strong concern that the policy includes support for the release of land for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, including homes and employment. The sources of housing supply to meet the projected demand does not seem to include figures within the proposed Cambridge Biomedical Campus expansion (second table on page 32) (site 056). We challenge this omission.

We note that the number of additional homes includes a 10% buffer which accounts for 40% of the total number of additional homes (first table on page 32): we are very concerned by this approach.

We query the failure to provide clear information about where employment land is located and to categorise this land into different potential uses. There apparently is a considerable amount of employment land already identified (page 33).
[Appendix H of the Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Needs Study meets this point in part. Policy S/CBC does not refer to this supply at all.] [see Jobs, Pages 228-232]

We reiterate the reference to housing needs alone not providing the 'exceptional circumstances' to justify removing land from the Green Belt and challenge the additional statement that 'limited release' might be justified for Cambridge Biomedical Campus (page 39). If it is proved to be justified, why is it on such a scale and so detrimental to the Green Belt and high-quality agricultural land. If there is a justification for the limited release of land from the Green Belt to enable life sciences businesses to expand and grow, including at Babraham and Cambridge Biomedical Campus (page 36), the land should be used for these purposes and not for additional homes.

We challenge the sustainability argument used to support continued development in/on the edge of Cambridge in the spatial strategy. Looking beyond the period of the current plan, there must be a limit to this type of growth if Cambridge is to survive as a liveable and compact city.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the proposal not to carry forward the Southern Fringe Areas of Major Change (page 60).

The Trumpington Residents' Association strongly supports the removal of housing allocations for the Telephone Exchange and Car Park, Long Road (Site , 091, R14) and the Cambridge Professional Development Centre, Foster Road (R16), due to uncertainty about availability by 2041 (page 72).

The Councils are committed to complete the new developments. The Trumpington Residents' Association argues that there is a continued need for support and special provisions while these areas are being completed, even when s106 funding has been used up, including continued support for community development, youth services, etc. The expansion of housing requires an increase in Council provision and officers to support the increased population, from the County Council as well as the City and District Councils (social workers, planning officers, etc.).

The Trumpington Residents' Association strongly objects to policy S/CBC and the proposed expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). We believe this is premature, unnecessary and inappropriate. The proposal seems to have been shoe-horned into the Plan without adequate consideration or consultation. It is not clear that it is either viable or needed. It should be removed from the Plan.

We have previously objected to the expansion of CBC that was included in the current Local Plan (S/CBC/Policy E/2). As far as we are aware, no plans have been put forward for the use of that land. Also, there is the potential for better use of the land within the existing footprint of the Campus: we are aware that the CBC authorities are actively looking this type of change. The policy states that "development on the additional land will only be allowed to take place when evidence is provided that opportunities on the existing campus have been fully explored and utilised before development takes place" (page 86). The proposals fail to demonstrate that the development plans are appropriate.

Concentrating development here will place further pressure on resources, transport, housing and the community. It would result in a "very high level of harm" to the Green Belt (page 89).

If approved, the proposal would extend the edge of the city well into the Green Belt, as far as Granham’s Road. Nine Wells LNR and White Hill would be greatly affected by development. The extension would be very visible from the countryside to the south, including from Magog Down.

The development in the Green Belt would undermine Cambridge’s 'special character' by reducing the separation between Cambridge and its necklace of villages which the current Local Plan emphasises support this character.

We argue that there is a sufficient supply of employment land elsewhere, as detailed in the Employment Land and Economic Evidence Base (Appendix H). The Development Strategy Topic Paper states that "Given the overall supply of employment land available, it is not considered that the case for release in this location can be made on the overall land supply" (page 132). There are other areas with the potential to accommodate the needs of CBC, within a reasonable distance of the core Campus. There are opportunities to maximise the role of the wider Cambridge biotech area, with more partnerships, less pressure on one location, and co-location across the area.

The proposed inclusion of additional homes as part of this development does not seem to have been factored into the projection for homes and is contrary to the Green Belt policy (page 39).

The proposed expansion area includes high quality category 2/3 agricultural land. The development would undermine the principle of protecting the best agricultural land (Policy J/AL, page 235, and the Jobs Topic Paper, page, 21). The National Planning Policy Framework states "Where significant development is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality".

It is not clear how the proposed housing fits in with the overall Plan. There is a reference to providing "affordable and key worker homes for campus employees" (page 85, final line). Is the intention to have no market housing? If the affordable housing is limited to campus employees to support the expansion of the Campus, it would have limited impact on the existing shortfall in affordable housing.

If the expansion was approved in principle, there is a strong case for phasing it well in the future (beyond 2041), after other steps have been taken to maximise the use of the existing site and the already approved development area; limiting the area taken up by the development; requiring a design code that restricts the visual impact of high-rise buildings; prioritising functions that really need to be close to the existing Campus; and for removing or reducing the number of homes within the development. We believe that it is essential that the best use is made of the existing Campus site first.

Mitigating the flood risk would require a comprehensive approach to drainage.

The Trumpington Residents' Association notes the reference in the text that the local developments in Trumpington are being built out and do not need a policy framework (R42, page 95). However, we stress that construction work is still underway in 2021 and there is a need for continued support for residents from all councils to ensure that the developments continue to become part of an integrated Trumpington community.

The Trumpington Residents' Association notes the reference in the plan to development off Hinton Way, Great Shelford (page 112-113). We are concerned about the impact of this on the Green Belt, local services and transport. We note with concern the reference to "Very well located in relation to existing railway station, with resulting excellent access to Cambridge, and to Cambridge Biomedical Campus once the new Cambridge South station is open, providing the exceptional circumstances required for Green Belt release."

Based on our experience in the Southern Fringe, the Trumpington Residents' Association is very concerned by the poor construction quality in the new developments and that this may be undermining their 'green' credentials. A significant percentage of the promised green benefit may be being undermined by poor construction and lack of developer commitment, e.g. the water conservation features in the Virido development.