Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

No

The Trumpington Residents’ Association believes there is a very strong argument against further large-scale development in the Green Belt. Any further development in the Green Belt would undermine the green belt purposes of protecting the setting of the city and the separation between city and villages, would further undermine biodiversity and climate change principles, and be to the detriment of the well-being of residents. It should only be contemplated if the criterion of “exceptional justification” is shown to be fully met. The fact that the preservation of the Green Belt may “restrict growth on the edge of Cambridge” is part of its purpose and should be seen as a benefit which contributes to all four themes rather than an undue restriction on growth. In our local area, we accepted the loss of large areas of Green Belt in the 2006 Local Plan, with the consequence that nearly 4000 homes have been built in the Southern Fringe in the last decade. In anticipation of developers putting in further proposals, we will object to further development in five local areas which are an essential part of the Green Belt and the separation between the City and surrounding villages: (1) the green corridor between Trumpington Meadows, Hauxton Road and the M11; (2) the land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the M11 and the west side of Shelford Road; (3) land to the west of Trumpington Road, from Trumpington village to Latham Road; (4) land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the east side of Shelford Road and Granham's Road; and (5) land to the south east of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, including White Hill towards Granham's Road and the approaches to Magog Down. We believe that it is essential that these areas are maintained as agricultural land or public parks. We are frustrated that it was not possible to comment on Question 2 without submitting a site plan. We are very concerned that the emphasis in the Call for Sites and Question 2 in the consultation is on development only; there should have been an opportunity to propose sites for protection, e.g. as agricultural land or public parks.

Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Belt, Dispersal: New Settlements, Public Transport Corridors, Densification of existing urban areas, Dispersal: Villages, Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt

As noted in our response to Questions 39 and 45, the Trumpington Residents’ Association believes there is a very strong argument against further large-scale development in the Green Belt.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association is cautious about the principle of densification of existing urban areas. We can see that there may be benefits in some locations, as long as this does not undermine local communities or affect the setting of the city. The new developments in the Southern Fringe have included a mixture of densities and that balance has worked well. There have also been some examples of densification within the established parts of Trumpington and we are concerned that this can lead to the loss of homes which are in keeping with the character of a local area and does lead to the loss of gardens, to the detriment of residents and wildlife. We think that the Councils should continue to resist 'garden grabbing'.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the development of the Airport for housing, as long as this is to a high standard and accompanied by a good local centre and essential infrastructure, including transport links. We are concerned that the existing city centre is already overcrowded and has limited capacity to support a growing population, so that a development on the scale of the Airport needs to have the full range of additional facilities to support a new community comparable in size to Northstowe.

As noted in our response to Question 39, the Trumpington Residents’ Association believes there is a very strong argument against further large-scale development in the Green Belt. Any further development in the Green Belt would undermine the green belt purposes of protecting the setting of the city and the separation between city and villages, would further undermine biodiversity and climate change principles, and be to the detriment of the well-being of residents. It should only be contemplated if the criterion of “exceptional justification” is shown to be fully met. The fact that the preservation of the Green Belt may “restrict growth on the edge of Cambridge” is part of its purpose and should be seen as a benefit which contributes to all four themes rather than an undue restriction on growth. In our local area, we accepted the loss of large areas of Green Belt in the 2006 Local Plan, with the consequence that nearly 4000 homes have been built in the Southern Fringe in the last decade, together with the creation of the associated public open spaces of Hobson's Park and Trumpington Meadows Country Park. In anticipation of developers putting in further proposals, we will object to further development in five local areas which are an essential part of the Green Belt and the separation between the City and surrounding villages: (1) the green corridor between Trumpington Meadows, Hauxton Road and the M11; (2) the land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the M11 and the west side of Shelford Road; (3) land to the west of Trumpington Road, from Trumpington village to Latham Road; (4) land to the south of Addenbrooke's Road, between the east side of Shelford Road and Granham's Road; and (5) land to the south east of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, including White Hill towards Granham's Road and the approaches to Magog Down. We believe that it is essential that these areas are maintained as agricultural land or public parks.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the concept of new settlements, including the possibility of a large-scale new town as part of the spatial strategy in the East-West arc.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the concept of concentrating development along transport corridors, as long as there are effective public transport services and investment in any the new communities.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association encourages the Councils to persuade developers to avoid inappropriate marketing names. Any names must be sensitive to local interests. In the case of the Southern Fringe, the inappropriate marketing name 'Great Kneighton' was used for developments within Trumpington. This name should not be used in Council reports, etc. (e.g. see the caption on page 63). We are Trumpington - and have been for over 1000 years - and our identity should not be usurped by marketing opportunities. As residents, we consider the whole of the new developments to be part of ONE community of Trumpington.