Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Context
The NPPF sets out that local plans should take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure (paragraph 175). The Local Nature Partnership ‘Natural Cambridgeshire’ have set an ambition to double the area of rich wildlife habitats and natural greenspace in the area by 2050 – known as the ‘doubling nature’ initiative. Further to this and at a more local level, the Cambridge Nature Network, devised by two charities (Cambridge Past Present and Future and the Wildlife Trust BCN) and endorsed by the Greater Cambridge Councils, have been established.
These initiatives have emerged alongside a growing awareness that Cambridgeshire is one of the most nature depleted counties in the country and that, as an area of rapid economic and population growth, the provision and accessibility of natural greenspace has not kept pace with this. Further, the report identifies the importance of the need to enhance and create green spaces for public recreation and refreshment, the Covid-19 crisis highlighting the need for publicly accessible green space. As a result, natural assets in Cambridgeshire are coming under increasing pressure from growing visitor numbers. The emerging GCLP is therefore a key element in supporting such initiatives and ensuring that the best opportunities to increase or improve new habitats and natural greenspaces are realised. The Reg 18 consultation recognises the importance of this by setting out an aim to: ‘Increase and improve our network of habitats for wildlife, and green spaces for people, ensuring that development leaves the natural environment better than it was before’.
In order to achieve this aim, one of the key policies proposed in the GCLP is ‘Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure’ which identifies the existing green infrastructure network and the strategic initiatives intended to enhance it and addresses how development proposals should relate to green infrastructure. CEG fully support the Councils’ aims and ambitions in this regard and consider that development of the site could promote the successful delivery of green infrastructure in a positive and collaborative way. As the Cambridge Nature Network’s report alludes, the reconnection of people to nature, particularly resulting from the pandemic, has led to an increased appreciation of the value of nature for recreation and health. A survey conducted by Cambridge Ahead during the pandemic found that access to nature was the top ranked concern of young employees (aged 21-35) and therefore it is felt that there should be an acknowledgement within policy that increasing access to green spaces through a joined up green infrastructure approach should be encouraged.

Context
Climate change is fundamental to the NPPF’s environmental objective of sustainable development, stating that: “The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
The emerging GCLP is strongly influenced by reducing climate impacts, through compact development located to connect homes with jobs and where active and sustainable travel can be maximised. The proposed development strategy for the Greater Cambridge area is subsequently focused on directing development where active and public transport is the natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development, and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live (as set out in Policy S/DS).
CEG agrees with the emphasis placed on the need to decrease climate impacts and support the aim to help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050. To achieve this, the Reg 18 consultation recognises that development should be sited in places that help to limit private car use and, in turn, carbon emissions. In the context of South East Cambridge, the Plan states that: ‘Our evidence shows that the edge of Cambridge could be a sustainable location for homes and jobs, being accessible to existing jobs and services.’
How do other options compare?
New settlements
Within the overarching climate change context, it is important to consider the proposed development at new settlements, as well as the associated impacts. Section 2.4 of the Reg 18 consultation document suggests that growth at Waterbeach, Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Cambourne is an important part of the strategy for development – all of which lie beyond the Cambridge Green Belt to the north and west of the city (within the previous South Cambridgeshire plan area).
Such areas beyond Cambridge City and the edge of Cambridge are unproven employment markets. While Waterbeach does benefit from an existing agglomeration of employment uses, it is evident that businesses want to be sited where they can tap into the presence of other local business and research networks, a local highly skilled labour force and Cambridge University, and this means being located in or near the city. This is illustrated by the ongoing challenge that Cambourne and Northstowe face in delivering employment growth; while they may be effective in housing delivery terms, these new settlements do not contain established clusters of knowledge-intensive sectors and they struggle to recreate the economic magnetism of the city itself. Demand for employment space (including lab and office space) therefore remains in and on the edge of Cambridge City.
This is an important point within the climate change theme. As to be expected, locating employment development beyond the urban area of Cambridge will only serve to drive unsustainable travel patterns as local residents increasingly need to use the car to commute. This was highlighted throughout the transport evidence, in which new settlement strategic spatial options tended to score lower than those focused around the city or on the edge of the city, including in the Green Belt, because travel to work patterns are not characterised by active modes of travel. The combination of unproven employment markets and unsustainable travel patterns associated with the new towns therefore raises questions around the proposed strategy towards employment growth in these areas, and it is considered that this is contrary to the aims of the central climate change theme.

Context
Climate change is fundamental to the NPPF’s environmental objective of sustainable development, stating that: “The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
The emerging GCLP is strongly influenced by reducing climate impacts, through compact development located to connect homes with jobs and where active and sustainable travel can be maximised. The proposed development strategy for the Greater Cambridge area is subsequently focused on directing development where active and public transport is the natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development, and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live (as set out in Policy S/DS).
CEG agrees with the emphasis placed on the need to decrease climate impacts and support the aim to help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050. To achieve this, the Reg 18 consultation recognises that development should be sited in places that help to limit private car use and, in turn, carbon emissions. In the context of South East Cambridge, the Plan states that: ‘Our evidence shows that the edge of Cambridge could be a sustainable location for homes and jobs, being accessible to existing jobs and services.’
How do other options compare?
New settlements
Within the overarching climate change context, it is important to consider the proposed development at new settlements, as well as the associated impacts. Section 2.4 of the Reg 18 consultation document suggests that growth at Waterbeach, Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Cambourne is an important part of the strategy for development – all of which lie beyond the Cambridge Green Belt to the north and west of the city (within the previous South Cambridgeshire plan area).
Such areas beyond Cambridge City and the edge of Cambridge are unproven employment markets. While Waterbeach does benefit from an existing agglomeration of employment uses, it is evident that businesses want to be sited where they can tap into the presence of other local business and research networks, a local highly skilled labour force and Cambridge University, and this means being located in or near the city. This is illustrated by the ongoing challenge that Cambourne and Northstowe face in delivering employment growth; while they may be effective in housing delivery terms, these new settlements do not contain established clusters of knowledge-intensive sectors and they struggle to recreate the economic magnetism of the city itself. Demand for employment space (including lab and office space) therefore remains in and on the edge of Cambridge City.
This is an important point within the climate change theme. As to be expected, locating employment development beyond the urban area of Cambridge will only serve to drive unsustainable travel patterns as local residents increasingly need to use the car to commute. This was highlighted throughout the transport evidence, in which new settlement strategic spatial options tended to score lower than those focused around the city or on the edge of the city, including in the Green Belt, because travel to work patterns are not characterised by active modes of travel. The combination of unproven employment markets and unsustainable travel patterns associated with the new towns therefore raises questions around the proposed strategy towards employment growth in these areas, and it is considered that this is contrary to the aims of the central climate change theme.