The Government’s Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has just been published in the East of England Plan, which sets out long-term growth targets for the City to 2021.
The Government strategy:
- Adds 4,000 homes to the building target for Cambridge 2001 to 2021. The overall housing target for this period for the City has been raised to 19,000 homes. Furthermore the type of target has been amended. It was previously a realistic target to be achieved as closely as possible; it is now a minimum figure, which means that there will be pressures for us to exceed the target. This may encourage the promoters of sites on the edge of the City to resubmit proposals that have already been considered and rejected in existing plans.
- No additional new towns (such as Northstowe) are proposed around Cambridge in the RSS, but there are separate plans for a large new town south of the City at Hanley Grange, which would impact upon the City. The City Council is concerned that any assessment of new town proposals in the Cambridge sub-region must start from an assessment of the capacity of Cambridge to absorb the impacts of such growth, even if located many miles from the City.
- No new Green Belt review for Cambridge is proposed now, although the next version of the RSS may need to consider this issue.
- The Plan proposes amending the stated purpose of the Cambridge Green Belt by deleting the reference to a compact city,
which has previously been included in the first bullet of policy CSR3 "as a compact, dynamic city":
- CSR3: Green Belt
In making provision for housing, employment and all other development a Green Belt should be maintained around Cambridge to define the extent of urban growth in accordance with the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, which are to:- Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a dynamic city with a thriving historic centre;
- Maintain and enhance the quality of its setting; and
- Prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.
- CSR3: Green Belt
The benefits of seeing Cambridge as a compact City have been at the heart of planning policy for many years and we are concerned as to how the deletion of this phrase would influence a future Green Belt review.
The City Council objected to these proposed changes, and is concerned that Government has given no reasoned response to its objections. This approach is the opposite of what Government expects of the City Council when we are writing our own plans when we have to provide a written response to each objection.
A new study into the viability of residential development at the Cambridge Northern Fringe site occupied by the sewage works has just revealed that the development of the site for 2,300 houses will not be deliverable for the foreseeable future due to its cost. This loss will make the Government target of 19,000 houses more difficult to achieve. Our objections to the emerging RSS specifically stated that it would not be a sound approach to rely of every site in Cambridge coming forward for development and yet this is what the Government have chosen to do. Even before the print is dry on the plan the assumptions on which it is based are proving to be incorrect in respect of housing capacity in Cambridge.
The City Council is very worried that this revised Plan creates built-in uncertainty about the future size and shape of Cambridge. It seems to be biased towards its continued growth, without there being evidence that such growth patterns can be accommodated.
Councillor Sian Reid, Executive Councillor for Planning & Transport said:
"We are very disappointed at the changes to the East of England Plan. They are not properly justified and we have serious concerns about where they may lead in future to the amenity and environment of the City. It is vital that the already high level of growth that has been accepted is allowed to go ahead under a stable set of spatial policies. We are aiming to achieve successful growth and not just to pump up the numbers. The Government needs to be aware that it is trampling on the goodwill of residents by imposing higher growth targets in this way".
- ends -