AGENDA ITEM NO 10 TITLE: THE REVIEW OF THE EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN: CONSULTATION

Committee: Strategic Development Committee

Date: 10 November 2009

Author: Planning Policy Team Leader [J218]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To discuss a joint Cambridgeshire response to the consultation on the review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) - by the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Members:

i. Endorse a Joint Cambridgeshire response to the Regional Spatial Strategy Consultation Paper, with additional East Cambridgeshire comments if necessary, covering the following points:

 That there is scope for sustainable growth in market towns in East Cambridgeshire as part of a balanced strategy subject to the need for essential infrastructure;  That the local needs of rural areas for employment, services/ facilities and housing of an appropriate scale are catered for;  That the Mereham and Six Mile Bottom proposals are no longer worthy of consideration.

ii. That the final wording of the response be delegated to the Executive Director of Development Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Development Committee.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 The Government have required EERA to explore bigger housing numbers in this region through a formal review of RSS to 2031. EERA must take account of:

 Indicators of Housing Need especially that of the National Housing and Planning Unit on improving affordability  Achieving the most sustainable pattern of development  Deliverability within a set timeframe (2011 to 2031)

The EERA consultation closes on the 24 November 2009.

Agenda Item 10 - page 1

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc 3.2 The Cambridgeshire local authorities are working together through the Joint Cambridgeshire Regional Spatial Strategy Review Panel (CReSSP) to agree a single joint response to the RSS review consultation. The joint response is to be considered for approval and signed off individually by each authority during November 2009 as their formal response to the consultation. A draft response is currently being developed by officers reflecting the overall strategy and spatial vision agreed in June 2009 by the Cambridgeshire authorities (Appendix 1 and 2) and taking on board comments made at the CReSSP meeting on the 2 October 2009 (minutes of this CReSSP meeting are attached as Appendix 3). A verbal update on the emerging joint response will be given at the Committee Meeting and a copy of a draft response will be tabled if available.

3.3 EERA’S SCENARIOS

EERA have suggested four scenarios for housing growth in order to get comments on what direction the review of RSS should take. EERA stress that the future is hard to predict and so none of the scenarios should be taken as the right answer. Housing requirements are given for each district although these are intended as only a guide with further work required before writing the preferred version of the RSS review.

Scenario 1 - Roll forward of existing RSS Strategy

This scenario is based on the view of local authorities in the region. Scenario 1 takes most account of practicalities such as the availability of jobs and services but also the effect of the recession. For Cambridgeshire the housing requirement is 3600 dwellings a year to 2031. For East Cambridgeshire this would mean a requirement of 390 dwellings a year or around a further 2300 dwellings. The levels of growth for the City and South Cambs have been given a ceiling slightly below RSS rates. Taking this and constraints such as Marshalls Airport into account it is considered that 3000 dwellings pa is more realistic and that the rest (around 12000 dwellings) would have to be made up from the most sustainable market towns in East Cambridgeshire, Hunts and Fenland. Expansion of the Market towns would have to be accompanied by better infrastructure and economic investment. The Ely Transport Study has demonstrated that Ely cannot grow significantly above existing planned levels without a Southern Link Road to resolve the current problems on the A142.

Scenario 2 National housing advice and regional new settlements

This scenario is one of those required to test advice given to Government by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU). NHPAU suggest that growth in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 new homes a year would be needed in the region to stabilise long-term rises in house prices. For Cambridgeshire, this would mean 4,560 dwellings a year. Under scenario 2, nearly all of the increase would be met in Huntingdonshire. This follows the Regional Scale Settlement Study’s recommendations of a new settlement at Alconbury.

Agenda Item 10 - page 2

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc The analysis of impacts highlights that this scenario could draw resources from existing towns, particularly during the early development of the new settlement. It is also acknowledged that this scenario would have impacts on local landscapes. For this scenario the housing requirement for East Cambridgeshire remains 390 dwellings.

Scenario 3 National housing advice and regional economic forecasts

This scenario is also required by NHPAU advice but is based on economic potential to create more jobs. Extra housing growth is distributed to areas where there is forecast to be demand for additional workers. For Cambridgeshire this would produce a level of growth identical to scenario 2 (see above). However scenario 3 would lead to increased provision in Cambridge City, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire rather than Alconbury. For East Cambridgeshire this scenario would mean a considerable increase from the existing RSS rate to 620 dwellings pa. It is not clear from when this increase would kick in, but assuming 2011, it would mean that our district would have to find around another 6500 dwellings.

The difficulty with this scenario is that it is theoretical and compares badly with what is happening on the ground. For example the Cambridgeshire Development Study (2009) has more realistic jobs projections based on the current economic climate. This Study and East Cambridgeshire’s own employment predictions show around half the level of jobs suggested by EERA. Moreover jobs require serviced employment land and major investment to bring it forward.

Scenario 4 National housing advice and 2006 Household Projection

This scenario takes both the scale and distribution of growth from Government projections of new households. The consultation highlights that these projections are significantly influenced by past rates of migration that may not be replicated in the future. The scenario is theoretical taking no account of the practicalities of delivery.

For Cambridgeshire this would produce a requirement for 4,350 dwellings a year. Compared to Scenario 1, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire would provide less housing, with the majority of growth (some 63%) being provided in East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and Huntingdonshire. For East Cambridgeshire this scenario would nearly double the existing RSS rate to 750 dwellings pa. Assuming the new rate kicks in 2011, it would mean that our district would have to find around another 9000 dwellings. This scenario would increase the risk of new settlement proposals in the district.

Agenda Item 10 - page 3

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc 3.4 EERA’S CALL FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - MEREHAM/NORTH ELY

EERA have produced a Sub-Regional profile for Cambridgeshire that sets out more local information including Developers Proposals. EERA invited developers to submit proposals (by 22 October 2008) for large-scale development to help provide a good range of options to consider. EERA have categorised the developer proposals as those;

.With some potential .With serious challenges .No longer worthy of consideration

The top category contains just two proposals namely Ely North along with Winteringham (St Neots).

The category of those with serious challenges contains nine proposals including Alconbury.

Mereham is in the bottom category no longer worthy of consideration.

The Assembly accepts the views (of the Cambridgeshire authorities) on the proposals including that Mereham is no longer worthy of consideration.

A further proposal was received by EERA outside the call-in period at Six Mile Bottom. The Cambridgeshire authorities (including County) were only made aware of the proposal in October 2009. A joint letter is being sent from the Cambridgeshire authorities asking for clarification on the status of this proposal (see Appendix 4). The Cambridgeshire authorities were not notified in time to inform the EERA consultation and question the status of the proposal given it was submitted so long after the deadline. Unlike the “duly made” proposals, Six Mile Bottom cannot be considered “in the round”. There would be issues of natural justice if EERA gave the same status to the proposal as those that were duly made. Six Mile Bottom itself was rejected at the 2003 Structure Plan Inquiry, rejected again in EERA’s Regional Settlement Study (2009) and should be deemed no longer worthy of consideration.

3.5 MASTER PLANS

The Ely Master Plan is out to consultation. The Draft Document was prepared in anticipation of the need to explore greater housing numbers. The Draft Document notes Ely has exceptional rail connections for a town of its size and provides evidence for the RSS review. The Soham Draft Master Plan is in preparation. For Littleport the process of preparation has just started.

Agenda Item 10 - page 4

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc 3.6 CAMBRIDGESHIRE’S JOINT RESPONSE TO EERA CONSULTATION

As a region EERA stated that there was support for rolling forward the existing RSS rates. The emerging joint Cambridgeshire response broadly takes the same position. The other scenarios are unsustainable and undeliverable within the timeframe. CReSSP Members took the view that the EEDA/EERA assumptions on jobs and homes growth were unrealistic and unsustainable. More realistic targets would help every ones understanding of what we need. CReSSP will consider a full response on the 13 November 2009. Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 set out the overall strategy and spatial vision agreed by Cambridgeshire authorities in June 2009. This sets the framework for the joint response to the current consultation.

3.7 NEXT STEPS IN RSS PREPARATION PROCESS

After the consultation has closed, EERA will assess all the responses it receives and prepare a public consultation draft of the East of England Plan. This will be Public consultation on the draft in March 2010 and it is expected that an Examination in Public will be held into the Plan during summer 2010. Following the Examination and the publication of the Inspector’s report, the Government will issue changes to the Plan and consult on them. It is expected that the final Plan will be published in 2011.

4.0 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 A key issue for East Cambridgeshire is to explore the growth potential of market towns and their role in a balanced strategy. So far, of the market towns, Ely and St Neots have demonstrated that they can produce proposals with appropriate potential.

4.2 An Ely Southern By Pass would be required for Ely North and is essential for the future prospects of the town.

4.3 Beyond this, growth should go to Market towns where job growth/infrastructure can support further housing, followed by sustainable expansion at other towns with excellent transport links. Growth in Soham and Littleport should be considered.

4.4 More generally better links between RSS and the Regional Transport Strategy are required. There should also be a more inclusive Cambridgeshire sub- region that takes account of the whole of the County. In the same way there should be a better deal for rural areas that can build on their links with market towns.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Officer and Member time engaged in this process.

Agenda Item 10 - page 5

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc 6.0 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix 1 - Overall Strategy (From Cambridgeshire Authorities’ Advice, June 2009).

6.2 Appendix 2 - Spatial Planning Vision For Cambridgeshire (From Cambridgeshire Authorities’ Advice, June 2009).

6.3 Appendix 3 - Joint Cambridgeshire Regional Spatial Strategy Review Panel (CReSSP) Notes – 2 October 2009.

6.4 Appendix 4 – Joint letter of response regarding call-in period at Six Mile Bottom.

Background Documents Location Contact Officer

Room 012 Alan Gillham The Grange Planning Policy Team Leader Ely (01353) 616095 E-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 10 - page 6

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review.doc Appendix 1

OVERALL STRATEGY (FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE AUTHORITIES’ ADVICE, JUNE 2009) Overall Strategy - The favoured approach is to continue with the current strategy (75,000 homes) for the delivery of development in and on the edge of Cambridge at North West Cambridge, Cambridge Southern Fringe and Cambridge East and at the new town of Northstowe with planned expansion also of market towns. If some flexibility for further growth is required, this will be limited in scale (no more than 15,000 homes overall) and will be provided only where justifiable and deliverable with further balanced expansion, linked to the overall vision and strategic objectives for Cambridgeshire, as follows:

Market towns – Beyond 75,000 homes, the next option would be to enhance the role of market towns in selected locations where job growth, regeneration and appropriate infrastructure improvements can support further housing development helping to make these towns more self contained.

Transport links – Alongside this, there may be some limited potential for sustainable expansion at other towns with excellent transport links;

Cambridge Green Belt – Further development in the Green Belt is not an immediate priority because the review of the Green Belt arising from the 2003 Structure Plan is only now being incorporated in Local Development Documents. The review has been thorough and comprehensive, looking at all quadrants of the City fringe, releasing those areas which can be developed with least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and additionally at North-West Cambridge, where justified by the exceptional needs of Cambridge University. Other proposed Green Belt releases have been rejected by recent studies and by public examination Inspector's reports. The subsequent delivery of new developments providing in the order of 20,000 new homes on the Cambridge Fringes should be the focus of delivery for the foreseeable future. Therefore Review of the Green Belt would be held in reserve until such time as the need for the Review is confirmed and currently planned developments are well advanced. Taking these issues into account none of the Cambridgeshire Authorities believe there should be an additional Green Belt Review in the near future.

Rural areas - Significant development in villages is not generally sustainable and does not form a part of the strategy. Only small scale development to meet local housing needs will normally be permitted.

The key objective of the overall strategy remains to locate homes in and close to Cambridge and to other main centres of employment whilst avoiding dispersed development which increases unsustainable travel and reduces access to services and community facilities.

Agenda Item 10 – page 7

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 1 and 2.doc Appendix 2

SPATIAL PLANNING VISION FOR CAMBRIDGESHIRE (FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE AUTHORITIES’ ADVICE, JUNE 2009) By 2031 Cambridgeshire will be -

In relation to its people: o a County offering attractive homes, jobs and a high quality of life in a range of distinctive urban and rural communities with opportunities for all residents and workers to achieve their maximum potential;

In relation to the economy: o acknowledged as a world leader in knowledge based business and research, yet more diverse in its economy both in the Cambridge Sub-Region and across the north and east of the County, including the expansion of appropriate-scale manufacturing and low carbon technologies;

In relation to transport and accessibility: o served by frequent high quality public transport within and between Cambridge and the market towns, with a closer relationship of homes to jobs and services, access to high quality routes for cycling and walking and good links to the countryside;

In relation to sustainability: o an exemplar of low carbon living, efficient use of resources, sustainable development and green infrastructure, founded on the retention of Cambridge as a compact city and the expansion of market towns with closely linked village communities;

In relation to the environment: o outstanding in the conservation and enhancement of its urban, rural and historic environment including a vibrant university city, attractive market towns, spacious fen landscapes, river valleys and an overall high degree of biodiversity;

In relation to climate change: o well prepared for the impact of climate change and highly adapted to its effects, especially in the extensive low lying areas of the County.

Agenda Item 10 – page 8

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 1 and 2.doc Appendix 3

JOINT CAMBRIDGESHIRE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY REVIEW PANEL (CReSSP): NOTES

Date: Friday 2nd October 2009

Time: 2.05 p.m. to 3.25 p.m.

Place: Council Chamber South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

Present: Cambridge City Councillors S Reid and T Ward

South Cambridgeshire District Councillors S Kindersley, D Bard and R Manning

Cambridgeshire County Councillors R Pegram (Chairman), N Harrison and M Smith

East Cambridgeshire District Councillors F Brown (Vice Chairman) and P Moakes

Fenland District Councillors F Yeulett

Huntingdonshire District Councillors T Clough and D Dew

Officers: Cambridge City Council – D Roberts South Cambridgeshire District Council – K Miles Cambridgeshire County Council – J Barrett, W Hague, A Tofts and M Vigor East Cambridgeshire District Council - G Hughes Fenland District Council – C Hodson Huntingdonshire District Council S Ingram Cambridgeshire Horizons – J Onslow

Apologies from Members: Cambridge City Council – K Blencowe Cambridgeshire County Council – G Wilson East Cambridgeshire District Council - J Abbott, South Cambridgeshire District Council – T Orgee N Wright , Fenland District Council – Councillors A Melton and K Owen Huntingdonshire District Council – Councillors B Boddington and G Thorpe Peterborough City Council Councillor Elsey

9. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None Agenda Item 10 – page 9

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc 10. NOTES OF THE LAST MEETING 15th JULY 2009

Agreed as a correct record.

No matters arising were raised as they were included on the later reports on the agenda.

11. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES (INCLUDING COUNCILLORS NOT ON THE PANEL) OR FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.

None received at the specified deadline.

12. UPDATE ON CAMBRIDGESHIRE AUTHORITIES’ COMMUNICATIONS WORK

CRESSP were reminded of the range of communications work has already been undertaken by the Cambridgeshire authorities leading to the submission of advice to EERA in June 2009 as detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the report. The exercise generated 140 responses which showed general support for the protection of Cambridge and its historic character and setting, and for the further development of market towns, provided this was properly supported with new infrastructure, particularly improvements to public transport. There was also general resistance to greatly increased housing totals.

As part of the current formal consultation it was reported that EERA were undertaking a number of public events in Cambridgeshire to gather people’s views of which the latest was later on that day at The Maltings, Ely.

It was noted that the County Council was undertaking a parallel consultation and had developed a new questionnaire entitled “Future Cambridgeshire: Your County – Your Choice”. This provides an introduction to EERA’s scenarios and people were being asked to choose which scenario they supported as well as seeking their views on questions such as:

What Cambridgeshire’s priorities should be What people want to see as part of future development.

CReSSP noted that the lead taken by the County Council in producing this separate document was unique compared to other county councils in the Region.

The meeting was informed that 167 completed questionnaires had so far been received with the closing date being 24th November. Details were also provided of a competition which had been produced to help stimulate interest in the consultation and encourage people to think about the future of the county. Links to the questionnaire had been sent to a range of groups as set out 4.8 of the report with paper copies handed out at EERA’s public meetings and at a number of roadshow events for the week of 5th October as detailed in paragraph 4.10. To try to engage business people in the RSS review it was noted that a number of business breakfast events were also being planned and will be publicised through business networks, such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership and other fora. In addition, a questionnaire specifically targeted at businesses has been prepared.

The media had been kept informed of progress through press releases at key stages of the review which would continue. In addition, officers were looking to explore ways of engaging Agenda Item 10 – page 10

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc younger people, through channels such as the Youth Parliament and youth networks.

It was noted that an update would be provided at the next CReSSP meeting on 13 November with the results then to be presented to the County Council’s Cabinet meeting on 24 November, alongside the authorities’ proposed response to EERA.

CRESSP Members comments included:

Congratulating officers in respect of the publicity already undertaken which would enhance the region’s credibility in relation to undertaking a serious response based on widespread public consultation.

The need to publicise EERA’s closing date for responses (Note this is confirmed as 24th November) as although the County Council were to be given an extension due to the Cabinet meeting being on the same day as the official deadline there was a need to ensure as many responses were received within the prescribed time-table.

In terms of young people it was suggested that officers should consider randomly picking a school and seeking permission to undertake workshop type events with the school council seeking views on children’s top 3 priorities.

An offer was made by East Cambridgeshire officers currently consulting on their Ely Master Plan to share their results with County Council officers.

The importance of engaging parish councils beyond providing a link to the questionnaire. It was agreed that officers should write to each parish clerk enclosing copies of the questionnaire asking them to circulate them to their wider membership

13. PROTOCOL FOR JOINT WORKING BETWEEN THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Further to a request at the last CReSSP meeting in July, a separate meeting had taken place on 14 September between Cambridge City, South Cambridgeshire and County Council Lead Members at which a draft protocol had been prepared for consideration by the wider membership of CReSSP.

While there still might be major issues arising from the RSS review affecting particular authorities, it was hoped that the protocol would enable discussion between all the authorities before any separate response was submitted.

CReSSP agreed to endorse the following worded protocol to govern future working between the Cambridgeshire authorities on the RSS review.

The Cambridgeshire local authorities will work together through CReSSP to agree a single joint response to the forthcoming RSS review consultation being issued by the East of England Regional Assembly in September 2009. The joint response is to be considered for approval and signed off individually by each authority during November 2009 as their formal response to the consultation. Where there are varying views between authorities, best Agenda Item 10 – page 11

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc endeavours will be made to resolve those issues within the joint response. Only where such matters cannot be resolved will separate representations be made by any authority, giving due notice to the other Cambridgeshire authorities.

14. UPDATE ON CONSULTATION ON REVIEW OF THE EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF JOINT CAMBRIDGESHIRE AUTHORITIES’ RESPONSE

CRESSP received an update on the consultation work that the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) had begun on the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) review. The main scenarios and consultation questions were set out in East of England Plan > 2031 – Scenarios for housing and economic growth which predicted that the region’s economy would grow significantly over the next 20 years and its population was expected to rise from 5.7 million currently to nearly 7 million by 2031. The consultation argued that, despite the recession and likely changes to the planning system, the evidence and policies established by the review would still be needed to guide this growth. The review was to cover the Plan period from 2011 to 2031.

CReSSP noted that the number of new homes built in the East of England had increased each year between 2001 and 2008 and, if this trend had continued, the region would have come close to meeting the targets set out in the current Plan. The region was also generally on target to meet the requirement for job growth set out in the Plan. However it was highlighted that the recent recession had resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of homes completed, as well as leading to a fall in employment of around 30,000 over the last year.

EERA had produced four scenarios for consultation and highlighted that even the delivery of the current Plan could not be achieved without Government commitments to infrastructure investment, both to redress current deficits and support new growth.

In addition to the policy setting out future housing growth, EERA was also considering whether other parts of the Plan needed updating. The sub-area profile for Cambridgeshire described the County and set out what the four scenarios would mean for growth in the area. The profile highlighted that, if recent trends continued, Cambridgeshire’s population would be 789,000 by 2031, an increase of 25% on the 2006 population. However, the great majority of this increase (70%) would be due to people moving into the area, and the consultation recognised that future migration patterns were much more difficult to predict than natural population changes. EERA’s economic projections suggested that job growth within Cambridgeshire could be 104,100 by 2031. This would be an increase of 33% between 2011 and 2031 – well above the projected regional average of 18%.

CReSSP were pleased to note the EERA’s Assembly had accepted the advice set out in the ‘call for proposals’ sites in the format given to EERA (under the headings “with potential”, “serious difficulties identified” and “no longer worthy of consideration”) including that Mereham was not worthy of further consideration”. It was assumed from this, that the Assembly also supported the general comments made about the other sites, including North Ely (East Cambridgeshire) and Wintringham Park (Huntingdonshire) being “with potential, subject to the resolution of some major issues”. (The four scenarios for the basis of discussion were summarised in appendix A to the minutes).

The consultation outlined 6 main questions intended to focus discussion on the Review. CReSSP Members were asked to consider the questions in the light of previous discussions, Agenda Item 10 – page 12

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc the Cambridgeshire Development Study and the Cambridgeshire authorities’ advice to EERA - and provide comments to inform the authorities’ draft response.

Reference was also made to a letter received from the East of England Regional Assembly dated 28th September copies of which were tabled at the meeting which sought advice on sub regional / key centres for Development and Change policies with a deadline for response of 9th December. A report would be prepared with a proposed response for consideration at the next CRESSP meeting.

Officers sought a steer in respect to the listed questions in the report. However from the comments received as the discussions began it was accepted that CReSSP would not wish to just answer the questions as set out or select from the scenarios offered but would provide comments to help officers construct an alternative scenario if appropriate for further discussion at the November meeting.

The following points were made in discussion:

Specific points on the scenarios

In terms of scenarios the deputy leader of Fenland District Council indicated that his council supported housing levels in his district of between 650-800 dwellings being built a year as this was seen as aiding mixed use expansion in markets towns and would help local infrastructure. Fenland’s Council’s view was that securing better public transport infrastructure would negate against the increased use of car travel.

Councillor Kindersley asked whether Fenland, Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire district councils were supporting scenario 4. In response it was clarified that this was not the case in terms of overall housing numbers, but was more in relation to their local growth requirements.

Councillor Kindersley supported scenario 1 in terms of it having the lowest housing target but was concerned that as currently set out Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils were identified as the locations for the majority of housing growth. On this basis his view was that the current scenarios were inappropriate for the local requirements of the districts. He favoured scenario 4 but without Alconbury on the basis of it being the scenario requiring less housing in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council. He did not support continued ribbon development along established transport corridors.

Councillor Reid from the City Council indicated that the idea of having suitable development along a transport corridor as a vibrant version of ribbon development should not be totally rejected.

The point was made by Councillor Brown that most rural communities, as well as city centres, required a certain level of development to recover from the damage caused to their local economies by out of town shopping and other harmful changes. East Cambridgeshire required funding for significant growth to infrastructure and required a positive response in relation to local needs. In rural communities some of the growth agenda development could help make local communities sustainable, otherwise there was the risk of communities becoming completely isolated with no local services (e.g. this was already occurring in many places with shop, pub and post office closures). Agenda Item 10 – page 13

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc He also indicated that building on brown field sites in cities / towns was not necessarily the right option.

Councillor Bard warned of the dangers of compounding the problems of creating wider, dispersed populations if transport infrastructure was not secured. He also cautioned of the need to be aware of the danger of putting developments in the wrong places and encouraging more car use and therefore adding to increasing carbon emissions etc

Studies showed that most jobs were created in the City and South Cambridgeshire but this had to be balanced against the aspirations for growth in the other districts.

The point was made by a city officer that having growth out of the city did not necessarily lead to more carbon emissions, citing the case of retired people who would not necessarily require to commute to other places on a regular basis.

The point was made that with the current economic crisis it was unlikely that any Government would wish to spend large amounts of capital monies in creating new transport infrastructure but was more likely to wish to improve existing transport and that that any out of town growth would need to be linked to existing transport routes.

Huntingdonshire Councillor Dew explained that in relation to Alconbury that previous studies had suggested that the site was unsustainable. Further work was being undertaken on site capacity and this showed that even if development on the site were considered acceptable, it would be for a figure well below 20,000 proposed in the ARUP study.

General issues

A question was raised regarding whether there had been any reduction in the number of migrants following the economic downturn and whether it had been factored in to the scenarios.

A question was raised on whether the scenarios were set in stone or whether there could be an element of mix and match between different scenarios? It was confirmed that this was the case and their purpose was to encourage debate.

There was questioning of how reliable and current was the data EERA was working on. In response officers indicated that the data contradicted that found by the more recent Cambridgeshire study and therefore needed to be examined carefully and challenged where appropriate. CReSSP were united in the view that EEDA’a and EERA’s assumptions on growth (jobs and housing) were unrealistic and unsustainable and it was agreed that this would need to be highlighted as part of the response on the basis that targets required to be more realistic if they were to be achievable.

The need to ensure growth scenarios put forward were not only economically and socially sustainable but also environmentally sustainable.

Agenda Item 10 – page 14

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc A comment was made that while a great deal of housing growth was referred to as being required to be affordable housing, this was not possible in City / South Cambs due to the price of land.

The need to emphasis that currently a great deal of the current RSS was becoming extremely difficult in that Northstowe continued to be delayed, Marshall Airport and the Milton Sewage works had still not moved.

The need for a clear strategy (“Plan B”) on what to do to make up shortfalls if existing RSS was to meet its target or justification of why it was not possible.

It was again reiterated that there was a need for an agreed policy position / Cambridgeshire Sustainable Development Strategy in order to be able to argue against future Mereham / Hanley Grange type developments.

One member stated he was less concerned about new settlements coming forward from developers as they always took a great deal longer than originally expected and that if the existing planned new developments failed to be delivered, it would be as a result of there being no market for them.

In terms of checking whether CRESSP were still happy with the Cambridgeshire Study assessment set out in appendix 3 the following responses were provided:

The need to enhance smaller communities to prevent them becoming more isolated, but should be small scale developments rather than significant developments in villages was supported. This was looked on sympathetically by CRESSP especially in terms of an increasingly aging population. Location of homes needed to be in close proximity to jobs / centres of employment and with good transport links being critical and avoiding dispersed development with no employment prospects or which would lead to significant commuting (e.g. to London) The suggestion was that Ramsey should not be in the list in 6.3 (d) (i) as Ramsey previously experienced growth in homes with no subsequent increase in employment locally. St Neots and Ely were identified as towns that should be included. Littleport and Soham were identified by East Cambridgeshire as towns that could be considered for some further development. Wording in 6.3 (d) (ii) considered incorrect by Hunts with the suggestion that instead of sustainable expansion at “other towns with excellent transport links” should be changed to “other locations” etc with reference made to the objective of a sustainable strategy overall (e.g. potential of guided busway and A14 corridor). “Locations” rather than “towns” was challenged by one Member as was the potential of more on the busway. It was suggested that this looser wording could open the door to previous schemes, such as Hanley Grange. The point was made that while some market towns had the potential for housing growth with employment growth, this should not be a generalisation for all market towns and there may be other settlements in sustainable locations (examples in East Cambridgeshire were mentioned). At the same time caution was expressed about dispersing growth too widely. Cambridge City Members expressed concern regarding the caveats around the text on page 11 stating “that the Cambridge Green Belt further development was not seen Agenda Item 10 – page 15

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc as an immediate priority etc”. Their view was that there was no identified potential for future development arising from the Cambridge Green Belt and that rather than such a vague term being used, officers needed to specify specific timescales and identify where such development could or could not go if it was believed that this was an option. It was pointed out that in the past planning inspectors had maintained that a number of specified sites on the edge of Cambridge were unsustainable / not viable. Councillor Bard expressed the view that new settlements along the Green Belt in the current economic climate would be unsustainable. The view was supported by the officer from Horizons who also stated that transport and other infrastructure would need to be built on existing provision. In terms of more growth in Cambridge City, this needed to be linked to achievable transport provision which required further studies as City’s officers’ views were that Cambridge could not sustain the levels of growth indicated even in scenario 1. Further talks required to be undertaken between the County, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire district councils following the recent meeting. Terms of reference would require to be agreed. Confirmed that IT / home working should also be explored as a way of reducing journeys to work by car.

Officers confirmed that they believed they had enough information to go away and work up a response taking account of the views expressed at the meeting and the tensions identified.

1) Next steps for the Regional Spatial Strategy consultation

Following the meeting, the officers from the Cambridgeshire authorities would draft a proposed response to the RSS consultation in order that the full response could be discussed at the next CReSSP meeting on 13 November.

Agreement would then be sought by each authority at their relevant Member meetings and submitted to EERA by 24 November.

After the consultation closed, EERA would assess all the responses and prepare a public consultation draft of the East of England Plan. This would then be submitted to Government in March 2010 an Examination in Public to be held into the Plan expected during summer 2010.

Following the Examination and the publication of the Inspector’s report, the Government was expected to issue changes to the Plan and consult on them. It was expected that the final Plan would be published in 2011.

Other Reports required / or which might come forward

2) A report to be prepared with a proposed response for consideration at the next CRESSP meeting in respect of the Sub Regional / Key Centres for Development and Change policies.

3) A report on the scope for a study of the transport constraints to long term growth in Cambridge and where it might be located,

4) An update on Marshall’s move, if there was anything to report.

Agenda Item 10 – page 16

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

2.00p.m. Friday 13th November – noted

Agenda Item 10 – page 17

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc Appendix A

Scenario 1: Roll forward of existing Plan

This scenario was broadly based on the views of local councils in the region – most indicated that a “roll forward” of current Plan rates for another ten years was the highest level of development that could be accommodated. For Cambridgeshire this would be equivalent to 3,610 dwellings a year or 72,160 over the period 2011 to 2031. Most growth would be provided in the south of the County (some 60% in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire), although the levels of growth in these districts have been reduced slightly from a straightforward extension of the current strategy to recognise the concerns expressed by the Cambridgeshire authorities in the Section 4/4 advice.

The assessment of impacts highlighted that this scenario, as it has the lowest amount of new housing, would have the least impact on affordability. It could also fail to fully capture economic benefits. This scenario could, however, help to reduce carbon emissions from transport, if adequate alternatives to the car are available.

Scenario 2: National housing advice and regional new settlements

This scenario is one of those required to test advice given to Government by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) suggesting growth in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 new homes a year would be needed in the region to stabilise long- term rises in house prices. For Cambridgeshire, this would equate to 4,560 dwellings a year or 91,160 over the plan period. Under this scenario, nearly all of the increase on the first scenario would be met in Huntingdonshire, which would contribute some 26% of the Cambridgeshire housing total. This follows the Regional Scale Settlement Study’s recommendations of a new settlement at Alconbury. South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City would also contribute increased numbers to the total, reflecting that, under the existing RSS strategy, a substantial amount of development has been delivered in these areas.

The analysis of impacts highlights that this scenario – through the establishment of major new settlements - could draw resources and investment from existing towns and increase road traffic, particularly during the early development of the new settlements. Additional growth in Cambridge may also have impacts on the historic centre of the City. It is also acknowledged that this scenario would have impacts on local landscapes.

Scenario 3: National housing advice and regional economic forecasts

This scenario is governed by the economic potential to create more jobs. Extra housing growth is distributed to areas where there is forecast to be demand for additional workers. In areas where the economy is not predicted to grow as fast, housing levels have been maintained at the “roll forward” rates on the basis that intervention in the local economy will allow housing growth to at least these rates without encouraging increased commuting from the areas.

For Cambridgeshire this would produce a level of growth identical to scenario 2 of 4,560 dwellings a year or 91,180 over the plan period. Proportionally this scenario Agenda Item 10 – page 18

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc would lead to increased provision in Cambridge City, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire compared to Scenario 1, with provision being largely unaltered from the “roll forward” in Fenland and South Cambridgeshire.

The consultation argues that this scenario would be most likely to support economic growth, but, by focussing on existing areas of success, would not support economic diversification. The consultation also highlights that this option would be likely to lead to the greatest impacts on the historic core and landscape setting of Cambridge.

Scenario 4: National household projections

This scenario takes both the scale and distribution of growth from Government projections of new households. The consultation highlights that these projections are significantly influenced by past rates of migration which may not be replicated in the future - these have tended to be away from centres of economic activity to more economically remote rural and coastal areas. Nevertheless it is argued that these figures have been used by previous panels in the testing of regional plans and it is important that the implications of this scenario are understood.

For Cambridgeshire this would produce a requirement for 4,350 dwellings a year or 87,000 over the plan period. Compared to Scenario 1, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire would provide less housing, with the majority of growth (some 63%) being provided in East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and Huntingdonshire. Under this scenario Huntingdonshire would provide a similar level of growth to that suggested under scenario 2, with the development of a Regional Scale Settlement.

The assessment of impacts highlights that this scenario is likely to lead to greater volume and distance of travel by car. This distribution would be more likely to tackle localised housing need, although the viability of developments in some areas may limit the level of affordable housing that can be provided. It is argued that this scenario would also bring about regeneration in more remote towns, such as Wisbech. However, this more dispersed pattern of development could make it more difficult to manage waste close to its source and also have a detrimental impact on market towns.

COMPARISON WITH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DEVELOPMENT STUDY

The Cambridgeshire authorities’ advice to EERA, following the Cambridgeshire Development Study, stated that for the period 2006 to 2031, the most appropriate and realistic rate of growth for Cambridgeshire is considered to be 75,000 new homes. The advice recognised that there should be some flexibility for higher rates of growth, but overall provision should be no higher than 90,000 homes at a maximum. This equated to a range of some 3,000 to 3,600 new homes a year. A comparison of this advice against the annual rates in EERA’s scenarios was set out in Appendix 2 to the report..

Agenda Item 10 – page 19

Strat Dev Cttee/101109 - RSS Review Appendix 3.doc Appendix 4

My ref: RRS Review/Call for Proposals Your ref:

Date: 28th October 2009 Contact: Adrian Tofts Direct dial: 01223 715523 E Mail: [email protected] Environment Services Executive Director – Brian Smith Adrian Cannard Head of Planning & Housing Strategic Planning EERA Flempton House Box No. CC1216 RES1219 Flempton Shire Hall Bury St Edmunds Castle Hill Suffolk Cambridge IP28 6EG CB3 0AP

Dear Adrian,

East of England Plan Review – Call for Proposals

We are writing to you to ask for clarification about the Call for Proposals issued by the East of England Regional Assembly as part of the current review of the East of England Plan.

It was our understanding that the deadline for developers to submit schemes was 22 October 2008 and this date is still given on EERA’s website. It was also our understanding that 12 proposals in Cambridgeshire met the Assembly’s deadline and submission requirements, and that four schemes for the county were rejected for various reasons. The advice that we submitted to you in June this year – in particular Section 3 on the Call for Proposals – was based on this assumption.

It now appears that this deadline was not definitive. Elsewhere on the Assembly’s website a further scheme submitted after the deadline is listed – for Six Mile Bottom in East Cambridgeshire - although this scheme does not appear on the Assembly’s Call for Proposals Schedule (November 2008).

The Sub-Area Profile for Cambridgeshire, in summarising our advice (paragraph 3.21) states that we did not deal with this new proposal: this was because the Cambridgeshire authorities were not aware that it had been formally accepted by the Assembly and formed part of the schedule. We would like to point out that, while we have not as yet had the opportunity to comment formally on this scheme, a previous proposal in this location was rejected at the Examination in Public into the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan.

While we note the statement at paragraph 2.1(e) of the Sub-Area Profile, that the list does not necessarily represent a comprehensive account of all sites being promoted by developers, we would ask that you clarify whether Six Mile Bottom, and any other development proposal submitted after the October 2008 deadline, will be formally

Chief Executive: Mark Lloyd www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk considered by the Assembly. We need to have this clarification to ensure that we provide you with comprehensive advice and also that our Members and local residents are kept fully informed of these proposals, which would have major impacts for their areas.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Vigor Giles Hughes Head of Strategic Planning Head of Planning & Sustainable Development Cambridgeshire CC East Cambridgeshire DC

Chief Executive: Mark Lloyd www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk