Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The vision and Aims need to be realistic and although agree, would question if some parts can be met.

It is agreed that the rate and position of new development should be governed by local need, and by local we are referring to local jobs to reduce travel to work times and, more importantly, to be more sustainable.

We note that previous plans, that many large scale developments have been included mainly to the North of Cambridge (e.g. Northstowe, Marleigh, Waterbeach and Darwin Green) the last of which was included in the 2008 Plan but Darwin Green within the parish of Impington) has still not had a single house built. Unfortunately, the major growth in jobs has occurred to the South of the City, primarily on the Biomedical campus. This requires increased traffic to work through and around Cambridge City. We understand the new Plan can not undo the previous allocations even though they by their location offend against the sustainable development location ideals incorporated in the draft plan. However, we would expect there to be new policies in the new local plan to outweigh the negative effects by placing more stringent requirements on developers for sustainability criteria.

Affordable homes policy is essential. Families living apart due to no affordable houses nearby for offspring could result in external care requirements rather than a close family member living nearby providing basic care.

A greater variety of jobs (and possibly more of them), with a wide range of options including opportunities for those not wishing a desk flying career, to return to the 1:1 ratio of jobs in the village and village residents working from 2001. This would aid the sustainability search

The Plan refers heavily to one aspect of required infrastructure, namely potable water supplies, but for a successful extensive development it is essential that all aspects of infrastructure are available in a timely (that is earlier than the bulk of the development) manner, including
◦ Public transport
◦ High quality Broadband (with more home working people moving into new developments should expect this from move date)
◦ Social facilities (including schools, health provision, education, informal open space, formal open space, recreational provision and social indoor meeting places)
◦ (In the larger developments), local convenience stores established early in the development and not waiting until the full development is complete so the developer can get a higher price for the sale of the land for the provision of such shops
We anticipate policies to be added to the draft plan to enforce the requirements on timing of infrastructure to be conditioned in any detailed planning permissions. We note this was possible for Northstowe (by limiting the development to Phase 1 until the A14 upgrade was completed).
We would expect that such polices would apply to all large developments, not just the new ones in this new plan.

There seems to be considerable confusion over the terms village and town with the authors of the plan assuming that it is a matter of size and facilities (but undefined). The difference in law is only stated in the Local Government Act of 1974 which states a Parish Council (with many alternative names allowed such as Community Council as in Orchard Park) has a Chair(man) but a Town Council has a Mayor. There would be a considerable proportion of our community which would be apoplectic if they thought we were asking to be designated as a Town.

Some Private Car use will remain necessary. The Plan continues the confusion between car ownership and car usage. {This is applicable to the whole area not just the Cambridge urban area} In the Local Plan area there is a very high proportion of “immigrants” in planning terms. That is people that have moved into the Cambridge sub area from elsewhere including the rest of Great Britain. Many of the areas left are difficult to access by public transport from here, and with friends and family to be visited, a car for these weekend trips (or even to dash to assist elderly relatives at unsociable hours) means many will need to maintain their own car. In addition many trades (necessary in proportion to support those, for instance, working within the high tech businesses) require a vehicle for tools and equipment. Not providing sufficient convenient and secure parking for these vehicles will lead to blockages on roads (stopping emergency vehicle access) and parking on kerbs strongly inconveniencing those with restricted mobility or vision. Car usage on the other hand can be discouraged positively by good public transport links and walking cycling opportunities, the ability to work locally to ones residence (but this might be limited in effect with two workers from the same accommodation), and homes built with facilities for home working, and negatively by road pricing, reducing parking provision at places of work and reduced priority for private cars on the local roads.

Also, Trades people and delivery vehicles will need to visit areas with insufficient parking. How can I get my weekly groceries if I can't park nearby and a delivery vehicle can't deliver? How will my washing machine be repaired or a new one delivered?

The Plan needs to recognise the different aspects of car usage and car ownership.

The balance between dwellings and job opportunities has be improved but we are still unconvinced that the plans are practical

The assumption that the dwellings will be occupied by people working locally for a development arising over many years. Many may move their originally but records show most people now work for several employers in a career and with many job opportunities in the local area it is unrealistic to expect over time that all residents will work in the local businesses. This assumption ignores that two people in a partnership may choose the location to suit the locality of one partner with the other working elsewhere.

The breakdown of this assumption means more travelling into the NEECAP area for work, and given the availability of affordable housing , even with the new developments, may not be on the two public transport links and so increase the car volumes on the already at capacity Milton Road section from the A15 junction

Furthermore, the expectation of a halving of the incoming vehicles peak time demands for the Cambridge Science Park is not credible.

The provision of informal open space (especially as Milton Country Park has been declared to be already fully utilised and so not available to be counted for NEECAP) and even more the lack of serious formal space, such as not even a single football pitch)

All of which indicates a need to further scale back the expectations for new housing and jobs within NEECAP. This alters to balance of the Plan

There is a high chance of change re Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton as the Grafton Centre has a currently unknown future.

The plan states that there is already sufficient land assigned for job creation. Where is the evidence that this land is in the right place for that development to proceed? We note the Business park to the North of Waterbeach on the A10 is still only partially occupied several years after it was opened: many businesses consider the location that far out of Cambridge to be unacceptable..

A SERIOUS transport assessment is needed for Newmarket Road if 7,000 homes 9,000 jobs are planned. Furthermore, making all the radial access roads work to meet the objectives of encouraging use of public transport may result in some rat running into side streets, although on many of the routes there is little opportunity for this.