Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation to Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals
Submission by Savills (UK) Limited on behalf of Grosvenor (Britain and Ireland)
Policy S/OA/AS Abbey Stadium
Savills (UK) Limited are instructed by Grosvenor (Britain and Ireland) to make relevant and necessary representations to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals document which has been the subject of consultation.
The publication of this document reflects the work done to date in respect of a new joint Local Plan for both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council. A new plan that covers both administrative areas reflects an acknowledgement of the clear symbiotic relationship that exist between the two Council areas since it is the case that the City remains a focus for many South Cambridgeshire residents who continue to look to the urban area for their employment, retail , leisure and recreation needs.
Accordingly, the joint approach for a plan for the wider area around Cambridge is supported and this is particularly relevant having regard to Grosvenor’s property interests in the Abbey Stadium on Newmarket Road and the future of Cambridge United Football Club either remaining in situ or relocating to an alternative location within the Plan area. It is entirely appropriate that the emerging spatial planning policies of any new review should be contained within one single document. To that end we support the need for a review of the currently adopted two Local Plans and the submission of these representations should be seen in that context.
On behalf of our client, we have made previous representations to the Call for Sites consultation in Spring 2019 which sought to engage with the Council in respect of finding a long term solution for the future for the football club, its supporters and the City as a whole.

Current location and character
The Abbey Stadium is located off and to the south of A1303 (Newmarket Road), immediately to the north-east of Cambridge Retail Park and Cambridge City Inner Ring Road. The site has an area of some 2.58 hectares. It is bounded by the A1134 Newmarket Road to the north, residential properties to the east, the City Council owned Whitehill Road allotments to the south and Coldham’s Brook and Coldham’s Common to the west.
Abbey Stadium was reportedly built in 1923, with its first match being played in 1932. The current capacity of the Stadium is understood to be just over 8000 with just over 50% seated. It has four single tier stands; the North (Newmarket Road End) and West (Habbin) Stands being all terraced and the Main (East) and South Stands being all seated. The South Stand is understood to have been built in 2002 with the other three stands having been built in, or before, the 1960s. Accordingly, it is the case that all of the stands, with the exception of the South Stand which opened in 2002, have exceeded their useful life. Between the North Terrace and Newmarket Road is a portacabin-type structure which houses the Club’s ticket office and shop. To the west of this structure is an area of car parking capable of accommodating approximately 35 cars and an area of cycle racks (40 Sheffield Stands). The Cambridge United Supporters’ Club (CUSC), which includes a bar and social space, is located at the northern end of the ground. On the eastern side of the Stadium is an area of car parking, capable of accommodating approximately 122 cars. Vehicular access to this area of car parking is gained from Cut Throat Lane – an unmade track around 80 metres to the east of the main site entrance The site also contains a single storey garage to the rear of 535 Newmarket Road. The Club is currently in League 1 having been promoted in 2020/21 and having played in League 2 for several years– it was in the Conference League between 2005 and 2014. The Club is supported well locally and is the largest single supported regular sporting fixture in the City during the season.
Regarding the wider site context, the site clearly falls with the built up area of the City with the site bordering the Whitehill Road allotments to the south of the site. The site lies immediately north and to the east of Coldhams Brook and the wider area of Coldhams Common lies further south and west. The most immediate built environment around the site is given over to residential development with some commercial properties on the street frontage.

Content of the Greater Cambridge - First Proposals as it relates to the Abbey Stadium
Page 65 of the document identifies the Abbey Stadium in Figure 20 as an “Opportunity Area in Cambridge” under Policy S/OA. As such it is identified as one of 4 new “Opportunity Areas” “that would benefit from a holistic approach to any future development that comes forward, to provide policy guidance for development that also improves public transport access and infrastructure delivery, and seeks improvements to the public realm.” (page 62)
Grosvenor support this approach since it acknowledges the important role that this site can play to deliver new development in a key corridor leading into and out of the City. In such a context the site may be able to deliver a mix of uses together with multiple functions and the identification of the site under this policy provides a necessary framework to promote change.
Figure 20 on page 65 of the consultation document identifies the red edge boundary for the Opportunity Area which generally corresponds with the boundary submitted to the Councils back in March 2019 as part of the Call for Sites response (there is a small anomaly in the south east corner where further land should be included with the red line on Figure 20).
The supporting wording to Figure 20 as it relates to “S/OA/AS Abbey Stadium” states :
“The Abbey Stadium is home to Cambridge United Football Club. The club is keen to improve its facilities to raise its profile as a commercial sporting enterprise. It could achieve this aim by either staying on site and securing enabling development on site alongside an enhanced stadium facility or by relocating elsewhere and redeveloping the existing site for new homes. The draft plan will provide guidance for this site for both possibilities.”
Whilst we support the site’s identification as a proposed opportunity area, there is no expression as it relates to the long term views of the Councils in terms of either the Club staying on site and securing enabling development or relocating elsewhere and redeveloping the existing site. We fully accept that there is an important need to develop a planning strategy and in such a context we welcome the text which states that “the draft plan will provide guidance for this site for both possibilities”.
We read this text as constructive in so far as it states that both redeveloping in situ or relocation are both possible and this will be part of the ongoing discussions with the Councils as part of this Local plan review.
Greater Cambridge HELAA (2021)
In this context where redevelopment of the site is possible, we note that the Abbey Stadium is referenced as site 40123 and is identified in the Councils Greater Cambridge HELAA (2021), Appendix 4: Proformas for all HELAA sites (Part A). The site is summarised in that HELAA work as “red” in terms of its suitability and then green in terms of its availability and whether it is achievable. The methodology and the use of traffic light is a crude approach to site suitability since a single “red” as it relates to open space/green infrastructure has meant that the site is “unsuitable” (according to page 22 of the HELAA report).
The Comments part of the HELAA assessment as it relates to Open Space/Green infrastructure states the following:
“Within or Partially within an Outdoor Sports Facility
Within 50m of a Semi-Natural Green Space
Within or Partially within Protected Open Space
Within or Partially within Country Park - Parks and Gardens
Abbey Stadium is protected open space. Its loss will impact on formal sports provision for Cambridge United FC. Alternative site needed, or for a scheme to demonstrate how the use will be retained”
There is no dispute that the playing pitch is identified as “Protected Open Space” in the current adopted Local Plan but equally, it has been made very clear by Grosvenor that the loss of the playing pitch (and its open space qualities) would only occur in the event that relocation take place. Both options (redevelopment on site and relocation) would require the provision of the playing pitch. The reference to “its loss will impact on formal sports provision for Cambridge United FC” is misleading and seems to totally miss the point about following one of two options , both of which would not result in a “loss” to the Club . Consequently we cannot understand why the conclusion to this element is red within the HELAA and should in the circumstances be changed to “amber”. Indeed, the Council approach is further confused by the fact that the site is then identified under Policy S/OA above as a “Opportunity Area in Cambridge”

The case for options for redevelopment/relocation
The Club has been actively looking at plans to relocate / redevelop without success for over a decade in the context of an ageing stadium, currently near the end of its life and which is not suitable for a club with ambitions to play at the current level, let alone to play in higher leagues. The current capacity is a little over 8,000 with standing on two sides.
The freehold of the site is mostly in the ownership of Grosvenor who acquired the stadium in 2010 and have been working jointly with the Club to assess the potential for either redeveloping the existing stadium or considering options to relocate the stadium to an alternative site. The Supporters Club own the freehold of a part of the frontage, where the Supporters Club is sited and the City Council own the freehold upon which the away supporters stand sits. The Football Club has a lease with Grosvenor for the stadium which has some 34 years remaining and has been unable to make its full rental payments under the lease.
It is critical that a long term solution for the Football Club is identified and in such a context the Supporters Club are continuing to cooperate in finding a solution to the redevelopment of the stadium. Regarding the promotion for the redevelopment of the existing Abbey Stadium to provide for a new stadium facility alongside uses which can assist in paying for such proposals, it is the case that such an option must be viable, suitable , available and deliverable. Viability is of course a key issue and in the event that a redevelopment option is pursued which looks to retain a playing pitch on the site then we would hope that the Councils would support a site specific case for redevelopment of the site which would enable a viable scheme being put forward. In such a context the Council has the ability to draft a site specific policy and allocate the site for development and to set out the circumstances which it sees as relevant to a particular situation where there is the potential of reducing obligations on the site to ensure the redevelopment of the site and importantly to provide the long term security for the football club in this location. It is entirely appropriate for the Council to take such a policy stance should it decide to do so and we urge the Councils to grasp this opportunity in the context of this Local Plan review.
Given that the Plan states that “The draft plan will provide guidance for this site for both possibilities”, the Council should also provide a policy context whereby it looks at the relocation of the football stadium to an alternative site. The effect of this approach is to consider new greenfield sites including land currently designated as Green Belt. In any major review of the Local Plans, it is entirely appropriate that the adoption of any development strategy should consider the location of future growth must involve a strategic review of both the inner edge and outer edge of the Green Belt. The future of the Football Club must therefore be seen in this context.
At the Call for Sites stage back in March 2019 we set out a number of important factors which would be considered as beneficial from the planning perspective should such a strategy be pursued. They are outlined again for the purposes of this consultation:
In no order of priority these are identified as follows:
1. Moving the football stadium to an alternative location would result in making the current Abbey Stadium site available for new development which could include the provision of new housing and community infrastructure. The site constitutes previously developed land is located in a highly sustainable location within the City
2. A new stadium in an alternative location could be designed to accommodate other uses – not only community sports facilities but also, e.g. a conference centre and concert space and thus have a wider community function
3. Dependant upon the new location, access to a new stadium could be much improved over the existing site and thus potentially easing congestion and improving air quality in the Newmarket Road environs.
4. The Club would not have to temporarily relocate from the Abbey Stadium in the circumstances that a new related site was coming forward (which would be the case with redeveloping the Abbey). A season away from playing at the Abbey Stadium would pose a significant financial risk to the Football Club.
5. A relocation site would ideally be nearby in order that the Football Club could remain in the Abbey/ Barnwell area which would be beneficial for local employment, leisure and business and bring social benefits through the work of the Community Trust who would continue to focus the majority of their efforts on those areas of greatest need.
6. A new location would allow The Club to elevate their ambitions much further as a model community club through a genuine purpose built community facility, potentially open 24/7 all year round serving all sorts of different community needs. This presents an exciting opportunity to explore with the Councils and wider stakeholders exactly how that vision could be realised.
7. The stadium could be designed in a way to be able to grow with the progress of The Club.
8. The opportunity to secure a new greenfield site would mean a new start for the Club in masterplanning and layout terms and introduce the potential to create a modern 21st Century stadium with the necessary facilities alongside that befits the Club and the City as a whole.
Closing comments
The above comments are made to the consultation document in order to ensure that the Plan is moving forward in a manner that properly addresses the issue of the long term future of the football club. The two options (redevelopment and relocation) would appear to have been acknowledged in this document but without a clear policy picture of what strategy is being pursued to accommodate both possibilities. The new Local Plan has the ability to address the issue and the identification of the Abbey Stadium as an “Opportunity Area” is certainly welcomed whilst acknowledging that such a designation is inextricably linked to the need to find a solution to the future location of the club either on site or in an alternative location.

Grosvenor Great Britain (GBI) supports the vision and aims. It also supports the amount of development, but not the distribution and proposed allocations. Refer to main report of representations.

39. The strategy should be reviewed. More small and medium sized sites should be allocated in the Rural Southern Cluster, provided the sites are very well served by sustainable transport, in order to:
• provide homes where the need is greatest,
• reduce the need for in-commuting by workers at the research parks, and reduce carbon emissions
• improve access to labour in the life science sectors of south Cambridge,
• speed up housing delivery in the first half of the plan
• reduce reliance on windfall sites
• greatly improve housing choices for residents and sustain the villages.

Sections 3 and 4 of the representation attached address these policies. There has been an imbalance in strategic spatial planning with growth, mainly housing, weighted to the north, west and east of the City. This contrasts with the rapid growth in research parks located to the south of the City. The Spatial Strategy recognises this problem but does not go far enough to tackle the imbalance between employment growth and new housing.
The proposal by Grosvenor will help to redress this imbalance by promoting 300 new homes in Whittlesford in a highly sustainable location.

Grosvenor objects to the settlement hierarchy classification of Whittlesford. These concerns are explained in detail in section 4 of the Representation and Design Vision reports attached. The settlement hierarchy methodology should increase scoring of locations with excellent public transport access to the City of Cambridge, employment and services. Choices of active transport underpin sustainable patterns of living. Figure 8 of the Design Vision contains a recalibration of the settlement scoring for Whittlesford. This results in an additional 3 points, increasing Whittlesford’s status to Minor Rural Centre, reinforcing its suitability as a sustainable location for growth.

GBI considers that there is an over-reliance on proposed development in the Cambridge urban area and to the north, east to support the housing needs arising from the distribution of employment to the south of the City.

GBI considers there is an over-reliance on the proposed amount and location of development on the northern edge of Cambridge in relation to the distribution and amount of existing and committed employment development to the south of the City.

The past track record of delivery on the new settlements places considerable doubt on whether the proposed trajectory can be achieved. There should be a greater variety of smaller sites that can be delivered in the early years of the plan, such as Grosvenor's proposals at Whittlesford.

The need to support life science employment in the RSC with new housing is recognised. The Plan states the need is so great, the benefits so significant, to justify the release of land from the Green Belt. The failure to make adequate provision for new housing in the RSC will have serious implications for travel patterns, CO2 emissions, affordability, shortage of housing and access to skilled labour. Section 5 of Grosvenor's representation, the Design Vision and Environmental Report, introduce a new site for 300 Zero Carbon homes at Whittlesford to meet part of this need in a highly sustainable location.

Grosvenor's new proposal at Whittlesford would provide 300 Net Zero homes early in the plan period. The representation and appendices describe and illustrate a sustainable addition to the Village. Appendix 1 shows how the site can be integrated with the village, and provide a new woodland edge to the settlement. A network of greenspaces would be created which would provide an alternative sustainable cycle/ footpath route connecting the two parts of the village. The creation of a woodland edge would form a long-term defensible boundary of the GB. Appendix3 concludes that the proposals would secure a Net Gain in Biodiversity.