In its letters, CambridgePPF states that there is much to welcome in the draft documents. However, it has identified sections where it feels there are omissions and inconsistencies, and is calling on the Councils to rethink their development sequence and halt plans to release further green belt land for more housing.
Acknowledging that both Councils’ local plans are still a work in progress, CambridgePPF has made its position clear ahead of the public consultation that will commence in July – which will give local people the chance to comment on the future of the city.
Having reviewed the latest draft plans, CambridgePPF is encouraged by the Councils’ desire to keep Cambridge a compact city in its green setting, surrounded by its green belt. It believes that the balance between the pressures for growth and the need to keep the city compact is about right. It also appreciates the need for local plans to meet the requirements of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Planning Inspectorate, which will assess the Cambridge plan in terms of its contribution to national economic growth and recovery.
However, the charity feels that the Councils’ suggested development sequence – which gives high priority to development on the urban fringe – is in direct contradiction with the stated mission and strategic objective of keeping Cambridge a compact city in a green setting. The justification for excising more green belt land is also far from clear as the draft plans present no compelling explanation for any further releases.
Currently, five green belt incursions are proposed for house building in and around Cambridge and nearby villages and CambridgePPF argues that all of these sites should be dropped:
- 25 homes in Impington
- 90 dwellings in Comberton
- 100 homes on land once owned by NIAB (now called Darwin Green 2 extension).
- 340 homes in Sawston
- 430 houses either side of Worts Causeway.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – published by the DCLG in March 2012 – states that exceptional circumstances are needed to justify the release of green belt land for development purposes. While both the City Council and SCDC seem to think that these ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, CambridgePPF believes that no coherent and compelling argument has been presented by either Council. So long as other viable alternative locations exist for housing, CambridgePPF believes the case cannot be made.
Furthermore, the charity deems that the releases proposed would provide a barely noticeable fraction of the housing deemed necessary over the planning period – while having a disproportionate impact on the quality of the Cambridge environment. How can 25 homes at Impington or 90 houses at Comberton possibly constitute exceptional circumstances in the context of the 35,500 new homes proposed for the Cambridge area.
Robin Pellew, Chairman of CambridgePPF, said: “Overall we believe that the Councils have done a satisfactory job pulling together the plan – it’s an extensive task. However, we are extremely disappointed that the overwhelming response of local citizens to the consultation of the green belt sites has been ignored. In our opinion, the selection of these sites for development is flawed and should be withdrawn.There is a clear inherent contradiction between the policy of keeping Cambridge compact and planning to take yet more green belt.
“Targeting the city fringe and green belt should be the last resort if the desire for compactness is be achieved. Yes, we recognise that the continued growth and development of Cambridge and the surrounding area is essential. But siting new development in green belt is not the answer and does not protect or enhance the landscape setting of the city. Some may argue that the pressure for development land in Cambridge is ‘exceptional’ – but we disagree. It’s a constant, never-ending circumstance that provides the context for spatial planning in and around Cambridge, and will continue to do so in the future.
"In 2006, when the last local plan was approved, we were promised that there would be no further raids of the green belt. If more land is taken every time there is a review, then the local plan will fail totally in its purpose. I urge anyone who feels strongly about protecting the green belt to respond to the public consultation when it starts in mid July.”
Rather than using green belt, CambridgePPF believes that alternatives sites for housing exist through the regeneration of under-used sites within the city and in the surrounding sub-region, and that new settlements should be developed where good public transport can be provided. As such, the charity feels that the development sequence should be amended. Top priority should be given to sites within the urban boundary, both brownfield sites and re-development areas, followed by new settlements, market towns, and the better served villages along good existing and new transport corridors.
Continuing Robin Pellew, said: "We believe that the City Council should undertake a comprehensive review of the urban area to identify places where redevelopment would benefit the city. Everybody can think of places that are under-used – for example the extensive areas given over to car parking on Newmarket Road. We believe that these brownfield sites should be redeveloped before any further green belt land is taken. Whilst there are realistic alternatives within the city, promoting urban sprawl at the fringes is poor planning.”
Other points raised in CambridgePPF’s letter include:
The development sequence omits market towns. The 2008 Cambridge Development Strategy emphasised the importance of development in nearby market towns where good transport links can be provided. CambridgePPF believes the potential of market towns that may lie within the jurisdiction of neighbouring planning authorities to contribute to the development needs of the Cambridge Sub-region have been neglected. The charity appreciates the need to reduce car commuting but believes there areopportunities to provide an attractive alternative through express coaches or the greater use of rail, as proposed in the transport strategy.
The policy in favour of sustainable development needs qualifying if it is not to become a hostage to the future. It requires tempering with some form of qualifier along the lines of, ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be exercised only where planning applications conform to the Local Plan and contribute to the implementation of its Strategic Objectives’.
Input from the transport strategy needsstrengthening and is not adequately embedded in either the City or SCDC plans. The problems of public transport and traffic management are of such significance to Cambridge, that greater prominence needs to be given to addressing these issues.
NB: Additional green belt land on Fulbourn Road has been earmarked for commercial development. CambridgePPF believes that whilehousing provision can be relocated, the same may not be true for employment.CambridgePPF supports the concept of clustering like-minded businesses, especially in the high-tech sector, and appreciates that a more cogent argument could be made for the release of land adjacent to the Peterhouse Business Park for the expansion of ARM. However this case has yet to be made and until reasons for the proposal can be judged, the charity will continue to reserve its position.
About Cambridge Past, Present and Future (CambridgePPF)
Founded as Cambridge Preservation Society in 1928, CambridgePPF is a registered charity campaigning to keep Cambridge and its surroundings special by positively influencing planning developments, delivering environmental education and managing the green spaces and historic buildings in its care. Its diverse property portfolio includes Wandlebury Country Park and its Iron Age Ring; Coton Countryside Reserve; Barnwell Leper Chapel; Bourn Windmill plus various wildlife sites and historic buildings. Key achievements include protecting sites such as Grantchester Meadows, the Gog Magog Hills and Wandlebury Estate from development and helping to establish the Cambridge Green Belt in the 1960s. CambridgePPF has a growing membership, which makes a vital contribution to the cost of conserving, managing and developing its sites. With its HQ at Wandlebury, the charity has a mix of busy full and part-time staff and is run by a Board of Trustees together with Advisory Committees staffed by dedicated volunteers. For more information about the charity and benefits of membership: www.cambridgeppf.org
______________________________________________________