Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Any land significantly beyond the Green Belt at some distance from Cambridge itself, will have consequent implications for additional travel. Therefore, we would not readily support any form of new settlement significantly beyond the Green Belt on sustainability grounds. We do support two particular forms of development: 1) Development in close proximity to Cambridge within or near to the current Green Belt – see below; 2) Development at suitable villages with an appropriate service base that benefit from existing employment opportunities which are accessible by non-car modes.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Histon which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

It would be best to pause on new settlements until such time as there is further progress with the actual development of Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourne Airfield. It is almost certainly the case that the District Council has learnt many lessons from the planning of these (and Cambourne) and experience is developing all the time. There are obvious issues over the costs of servicing sites for new settlements, the delivery rate of new housing and the design quality achieved. The complexities are appreciated so it is felt better to await more substantial development of these new settlements before planning for more. There would not appear to be major brownfield sites which could support a new settlement so they would inevitably involve greenfield land. We do endorse the idea of new growth areas on the Cambridge fringe including in the Green Belt (see question 45) but we would not term such development as a new settlement in the same vein as those currently permitted or in hand. The Council should be mindful that new settlements do little to bolster the Council’s housing land supply and do not generally deliver new dwellings in a five-year timescale. As such, the Council should consider smaller and medium-sized developments, which will deliver dwellings within that timeframe.

Our clients has promoted sites to the north of Park Lane and to the west of Croft Close as sites for allocation for residential development. This was undertaken through question 2 of the Issues and Options document. We consider that growth at Histon is highly appropriate, given its proximity to Cambridge and established services/facilities and employment sites. We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Located on transport corridors including public transport and particularly those near a railway station; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities. We consider that the site promoted for residential development would be a highly sustainable location for new development. There are a number of employment allocations in close proximity to Histon and indeed, Cambridge is easily accessible by means other than the private car.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. The sites promoted at Histon are a good example of where the proximity of employment and residential opportunities is adjacent to an established and efficient public transport corridor – The Guided Busway. Given this location, we are of the view that siting developments along or adjacent to public transport corridors is highly appropriate. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

We believe that the village classifications within the policies relating to the Development Strategy should be reconsidered to take into account villages such as Histon, that are sustainable villages in their own right, are in close proximity to employment opportunities and are well-served by public transport. Such villages should be higher up on the settlement hierarchy and therefore considered to be able to facilitate more development. Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan defines Histon as a “Rural Centre” where residential development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the development frameworks provided that adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development. Due to the sustainable nature of Histon and its proximity to employment opportunities, we consider that it should retain this place on the settlement hierarchy.

The aims set out are ambitious and wide-ranging. It is important that the plan is not unduly long and complex. Too often, planning policies are over-prescriptive and subsequently lead to protracted debates when a planning application is submitted. The plan should be kept as simple as possible. Policies should not duplicate or repeat the scope of matters better controlled by other legislation e.g. Building Regulations. Viability testing is important. The need for social housing is appreciated but if additional demands are placed on the house building industry in respect of climate change, public transport needs or renewable energy generation for example, then there will be additional costs which feed into house prices and rents – thus potentially exacerbating some of the very real issues identified for the Plan to address. For local employers, attracting qualified young professionals is becoming more difficult due to house prices. Those employees would never qualify for social housing and, in any event, aspire to homeownership. There is therefore a case for an element of affordable housing provision to be in the form of low-cost starter homes (i.e. discounted purchase).

Disagree

We support the identification of those issues, but we would also add key employment locations to the list because that has a critical effect on travel patterns.

Nothing chosen

"We would suggest a plan period of 15 years from the date of adoption of the new Plan. If that is what the authorities have in mind, then it is disappointing to note that it is expected to take five years for a new Plan to be adopted. We do not fully understand, and it is not explained, why the start date is 2017. This should be set out at the next consultation."