+ Given that these sites are not incorporated in the current Local Plan, what is the strategy for this idea?

The Local Plan is being reviewed and at each review, there is an opportunity for landowners or developers to promote sites that would help meet identified needs. It will be for the Councils to decide whether to allocate this land or not, following a final assessment of the level of housing need, and consideration of a range of development strategies and site options. We believe this site is extremely well placed to accommodate growth as indicated, but we are aware the Council has other options too.

+ Who will benefit from this development?

Cambridge needs more housing as evidenced in the initial findings on the Local Plan review. The City’s economy is growing and housing delivery is not keeping pace with job growth, meaning that many people are either unable to find a house or are priced out of the market. This results in them either having to house-share for long periods or live outside of the City, with a need to then commute back in to Cambridge. This scheme will deliver up to 2,800 homes of which 1,160 will be affordable (40%). Those new residents will benefit. In addition, we believe local residents and other City residents will benefit from provision of new amenities and facilities including a country park, large areas of open space, enhanced recreational space and improved local drainage, reducing flood risk. Residents in South West Cambridge will also be able to make use of the new cycle routes and footpaths that will run across the site.

+ How does this plan enhance the cultural and community life of Cambridge?

The development will bring new people to the area, all of whom will be able to enjoy the cultural offerings in the city centre. We hope to foster a community spirit within the development by providing a range of shared facilities for new residents such as allotments, sporting and leisure options, community spaces and new cycle and footpaths. We would also expect that new residents will connect with existing communities in the area.

+ We can build houses on the Marshall site, in some of the villages that want it, in the north-east of Cambridge, by some reconfiguration of empty shops etc. Isn't that preferable to a development in historic Newnham that local residents don't want? We can reach the number of houses in other ways.

Due to significant economic growth in the Cambridge region, and high existing levels of housing need, there is a need for more housing. A range of sites will be needed, including brownfield sites and some greenfield sites as well. We believe that this site provides an opportunity to bring forward a modern and sustainable development that will help meet the housing needs of Cambridge whilst also providing numerous benefits to existing residents. We feel that this option is more appropriate and suitable than piecemeal development in less sustainable village locations that often lack necessary infrastructure.

+ How many people will live on this site? You keep referring to homes - but what is the expected population, and what is the expected demographic structure?

Ultimately it is too early to say, although Cambridgeshire County Council data (Cambridgeshire Insights) suggests average household sizes at 2.3 persons. What we can can say is that we are looking to create a diverse and mixed community and therefore want to bring forward the widest range of housing possible across the site. More specific breakdowns of housing types will come at the planning application stage and more precise population levels can be estimated at that stage.

+ Coronavirus has accelerated trends of home-working and distance-working, which mean it is ever less important for people to live close to their place of work. This has not yet filtered through into Planning Policy Guidance, or projections of rising housing demand in Cambridge. What evidence is there that more housing will be needed long-term in Cambridge, given the continuing trends for distance-working and teleconferencing?

We are confident that the assumptions that underpin this Masterplan are still valid, in spite of Covid potentially altering working patterns to some degree. There are sufficient numbers of people who would like to get back into a working environment with colleagues for collaborative, social and wellbeing purposes.

In addition, our site is near the West Cambridge Employment Area, which is due to bring a further 14,000 jobs to the locality (over and above existing provision) once complete. Working patterns will understandably change, but there will still be a need for office space and other places of employment, and it is appropriate that homes be built within an easy reach of this.

+ How much more will the Consortium's 'West Cambridge' agricultural land holdings be worth with residential planning permission?

Clearly the grant of planning permission will materially increase the value of the land, although it is not possible to quantify that until the final scheme is defined. However, the development will have to deliver a considerable amount of new infrastructure including roads, drainage, open space, a school and so on which will lessen the enhancement in value.

+ There seemed to be hints on some of the slides about further developments to the south and west of this development. Are there any concrete plans for these?

We can only comment on the site owned by the North Barton Road Land Owners’ Group. Any development beyond this site boundary is not part of our proposal.

+ How does this plan fit with St John’s College’s plan for Grange Farm?

The Grange Farm site is part of the site being promoted by the consortium. At the last Local Plan review St John’s College promoted their site independently, but have now joined the consortium of owners. St John’s College have recently submitted a planning application on the land adjacent to the University Sports Ground for a 245 bed student accommodation scheme where Grange Farm buildings once existed. This scheme does not impact the land being promoted by the consortium.

+ When is it likely this development will take place and how long will it take to build?

It is likely to involve a 10-15 year build period and is highly unlikely to start before 2025 when the Local Plan expected to be adopted. Timing of the development proceeding depends on the site being allocated and a planning application being approved.

+ Why didn’t the landowners use a local design firm or consortium with deep knowledge of local needs and patterns of use and access in the City?

The Masterplanners behind the Vision Document, David Lock Associates, are a nationally recognised planning and urban design practice that operate nationally and internationally and have a 30 year track record in design and delivery. They are experienced in advising on projects of this scale and calibre and have a experinece of delivering projects in Cambridgeshire. They have a strong understanding of the character and heritage of the city and have taken into account the future needs of Cambridge when formulating the Vision Document for this site, working with and being guided by a full technical team which includes Carter Jonas who are located within the City and have had a permanent presence in Cambridge since 1855. The consortium obviously have a deep connection with Cambridge over several centuries and have played a prominent role in devising the masterplan proposals.

+ How were the design and planning partners selected?

David Lock Associates were invited to participate in a competitive interview process with other nationally recognised design practices due to their experience and track record and were selected on that basis alongside their ideas for bringing this site forwards. Carter Jonas have acted for the consortium on this site for several years and are a very established firm with a longstanding base in Cambridge.

+ Is this density of budget building in keeping with a historical and charming city and a good use of green belt?

In terms of density, we are looking to keep around 55% as green, open space. The Vision Document notes how the scheme has taken its cues from many established Cambridge building typologies and this will evolve over time. The scheme will include woodland areas, footpaths, cycle routes, allotments for residents and sporting facilities. There has been extensive economic growth in Cambridge over recent years, and it is important that homes are provided to meet a growing demand. We believe that this site presents an opportunity to bring forward homes of a variety of types and tenures, in a sustainable location.

+ Were the flat top buildings conceptual design or intended design? Seeing Eddington and southern developments - the modern skyline of Cambridge is now like becoming some industrial dystopia. There appears to be no respect or understanding of historic Cambridge or the skyline policy.

The designs are far from finalised as we are still at allocation stage. Indicative designs are conceptual only. If the site is allocated and the scheme progresses, we will look to get feedback from the community on the potential design of the homes.

We have been working with heritage advisers and have been very alert of key views to and from Red Meadow and other locations. This has helped to guide not only the scale of the development but where homes will go. The elevations increase as you move northwards through the site towards the West Cambridge area, to be in-keeping with the immediate surroundings. Any images of the development shown at this stage are entirely conceptual, and detailed design, including resolution of the roofscape will be addressed at the planning application stage.

+ How will design achieve the aspirations (eg biodiversity, access to the countryside - next to the M11?) and values you have expressed? Will other options be compared and assessed re these aspirations?

We are not at the point of more detailed design or material choices. It is likely that the way homes are designed will continue to evolve over the next five to 10 years, and we are therefore not looking to finalise our ideas at present as we are still a long way out from a possible building phase. A key driver at this stage is that we are looking to create modern, sustainable and flexible buildings that allow for a multitude of uses. We will also look to reference and represent the unique character of Cambridge within this development, as this new community will leave a legacy within the city in the long term. A central theme of this proposed development is its connectivity to the countryside and to the various biodiverse areas that will be created, and proposals will develop further in this regard.

+ How tall will the buildings be and how will you ensure that this is in keeping with the surrounding area?

Buildings will range in heights from 2 storeys to a maximum of 4/6 storeys, which would be located to the north of the site as they would be comparable with the scale of development at West Cambridge. Storey heights through the site will vary depending upon the location, for example the masterplan has been guided by key views towards the city and so development within these view corridors has been deliberately restrained to lower scale buildings in order to retain these views. All of these details will be settled at the planning application stage of the project.

+ Why are you proposing 6 storey buildings in the Aldermanne region? This borders the Coton Footpath, a favourite local walk at present. 6 storey buildings are a horrifying proposition.

Storey heights will be agreed at the planning application stage. We have indicatively suggested there is scope for taller residential buildings at the northern end of the site, where the development adjoins the West Cambridge site, with large scale commercial buildings present there. Elsewhere the scale and height of buildings is altogether more restrained. This will be a matter for detailed discussion at any planning application stage when further consultation will occur.

+ Why do the new houses have to come right up to the side of the existing houses at Gough Way? If there is a green gap between the new houses and Gough Way, it would not be so very objectionable.

The current masterplan proposals do indicate a significant landscaped buffer separating the Gough Way properties along the western boundary of that estate, with building zones then set back behind that buffer. The land north of Gough Way is shown as playing fields. In planning terms these represent significant separation distances.

+ What about the views of Gough Way residents out to the countryside. If the North end of the development is higher it may be good for views from Coton but not for residents in Gough Way enjoying views across the fields.

As a general observation, there is no ‘right to a view’ in planning terms and so loss of aspect is not a reason not to allocate a site or grant planning permission for it. While we cannot protect all existing views, we will plan the development sensitively, having regard to the amenities of existing residents.

+ Will there be an access route through Gough Way to the new development?

No vehicular access is proposed, although there is an existing pedestrian access that also leads to Barton Road.

+ How will you ensure that this development will not put greater pressure on existing stretched facilities?

We will bring forward a suitable number of facilities for future residents to use. The aim of this development is that residents will be within an easy reach of their own facilities, to minimise any pressure on existing local centres and to reduce the need to travel. We will consult further on specific facilities for which there may be a need.

+ What plans do you have for community facilities?

As part of the development, we will provide a range of community facilities. This will include allotments, healthcare, leisure and sporting facilities and a wide range of outdoor public spaces. Retail, to serve local needs is proposed within the local centre. This would likely include a small supermarket shops / related uses plus possible medical facilities e.g. doctors / dentists etc. It is possible that a bar/café/restaurant could open on the site but this would be subject to interest from a commercial operator.

+ How close will any open green areas to walk and exercise be to Barton Road?

Along Barton Road, there will be open spaces available. As we are at an early stage in a project, the layout of the site is indicative, so we can’t give detail as to what form that green space might take at present.

+ You state that a neighbourhood centre would include a health centre but what evidence do you have that NHS England would support this? It is highly unlikely that a development of this site is large enough to support an additional health centre so I think it is inaccurate for you to imply there would be a new health centre on the development.

We anticipate the development needing to address any local demand in local health provision, be it for general health or dentistry and would expect a development of this size to make provision for new facilities. We will be engaging with the relevant health providers in due course if this site is being taken forward and we will determine needs at the appropriate time.

+ The central location of the school / supermarket means traffic must pass through the entire site. Given that these facilities are already available for at Eddington perhaps these should be located further south to reduce non-residential traffic through the development?

We are at the allocation stage at present, so the outline of where particular facilities will go is still indicative. However, the location of the local centre was selected to be reasonably central whilst being accessible to the existing communities such as Grange Road. The location is also adjacent to a principal route into the City, close to Rifle Range Road where a large proportion of walking and cycling and custom will pass by helping support it commercially.

+ Who owns the land immediately east of the M11 and why it is not included as part of the publicly accessible green space proposed?

This land is owned and managed by Cambridge Past Present and Future [CPPF]. They have not promoted their site for development, but the landowners have had some dialogue with CPPF and believe there could be some mutual benefit in terms of future collaboration should this development proceed.

+ What open areas will be available near Gough Way for off-lead dog walking which are livestock- free and safe from traffic?

We do not envisage that this site will be home to livestock. There will be opportunities to access the site from Gough Way and there will be multiple footpaths running through the site for walking.

+ One of the reasons that the dispersed settlements have ended up pushing people into the city is that the amenities promised in their initially approved plans were never actually implemented. What will be done in this development to ensure that the promised amenities will actually be built, and that there will be accountability and remediation if they are omitted - or there are attempt to omit them?

It is absolutely the promoters’ intention to deliver all of the proposed facilities within the development. Those facilities are seen as entirely complementary to residential development and the ‘critical mass’ that this scheme will deliver will ensure the viability of local services and facilities. We cannot comment on the circumstances of dispersed settlements other than to say they often lack the critical mass we have mentioned.

+ Can you also give us a sense of whether these will be flats, single family homes, a mixture (what percentage) and the total?

Ultimately it is too early to say, but we are looking to create a diverse and mixed community and therefore want to bring forward the widest range of housing possible across the site. More specific breakdowns of housing types will come at the planning application stage. We would however certainly envisage both houses and apartments.

+ How can you state the intention to provide 2500-2800 dwellings within 45% of the land area without having any analysis of the breakdown of types of dwelling? You must have made some assumptions in order to arrive at the 2500-2800 and 45% figures. What were those assumptions?

We have considered typical housing densities and made assumptions about scale of development in terms of building heights. Across individual land parcels there will be a mix of housing sizes and types. The yield suggested is an estimate at this stage and the precise number of homes would be agreed as part of any planning application. It is a requirement when promoting land for development to give an indication of likely site capacity.

+ Could there be co-housing within the development?

We will certainly consider this further – we are aware of other successful schemes in Cambridge such as Marmalade Lane in the north of the City, which has won a number of awards for its architectural integrity and its inclusive nature.

+ Will there be bungalows built? I’d like to be able to move into a bungalow whilst remaining in the local area.

This will be considered as the design of the development proceeds, but there is no reason why some bungalows could not be provided. We will seek to respond to known local needs when the development mix is being assessed.

+ What proportion of the homes will not be for University staff / students?

This has not yet been determined; however the expectation is that most of the housing will be for general market and affordable needs and not for University or College needs.

+ Is it planned to make it illegal for foreign investors to buy houses as an investment without any intention of living here?

This has not yet been considered but comment noted.

+ The vision document mentions housing for the elderly. Please could you tell us more about what is planned in this regard?

We will be bringing forward a wide range of housing options at this site and this will include accommodation for the elderly. This may include both retirement and care housing. There are not fixed numbers for each type of housing, but we can confirm that there will be homes for all.

+ What percentage of the housing do you expect to be ‘affordable’ and how are you defining this?

We will look to provide 40% affordable housing throughout the scheme, in line with the planning policy requirements of South Cambs and Cambridge Councils. The Current city council definition is that affordable housing is “Housing provided for people whose income levels mean they cannot access suitable market properties to rent or buy locally to meet their housing needs. It includes social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing.”

This will come forward under a range of tenures but is likely to include lower cost housing for sale, for rent, shared ownership and social rented housing as per the definitions in the National Planning Policy Framework.

+ Will the Colleges hide behind the "key worker" provision of accommodation and not actually provide any affordable housing for those that need it most? The example being Eddington - where there is no provision for the public and all sales are at full market price. The University has created a privileged enclave for those that can afford to pay the high prices in Cambridge.

No, the proposal includes 40% affordable housing which will not be reserved for people with links to the Universities. It will be available for key workers and Cambridge residents. This may include some University or College key workers but this has not yet been determined.

+ What is the cheapest house going to be? I don’t want this to become a cheap area

For those in housing need, no part of Cambridge is a ‘cheap area’. The focus on this development will be on quality accommodation, with the scheme being ‘tenure blind’ meaning that there is no physical difference in the appearance of the market and affordable housing.

+ Will there be student accommodation?

The scheme is primarily and overwhelmingly for market and affordable housing. We are undecided at this stage whether the Colleges involved with this development will need or want any additional student accommodation, but any that is provided will be based on known need at the time it is proposed. Student accommodation is in the long list of housing types and uses that may be delivered.

+ What guarantee is there that the green spaces within the development won't be built on within 20-30 years? When Trumpington Meadows was started, new building was going to be on the footprint of the existing buildings. It has gradually spread to more of the site.

With new development comes a requirement to provide usable open space for its residents to enjoy and keep active and ensure that balanced and well-designed schemes are built. This is generally calculated per person and is stipulated by South Cambs and in an adopted Supplementary Planning Document [Sept 2009] and Cambridge CC Open Space and Recreation Strategy [Oct 2011]. The South West Cambridge development will comfortably meet these standards.

In response to the point about future development, the Consortium behind the proposals will give a binding commitment (which can be secured via legal means) to ensure that land deliberately designed to be kept ‘open’ remains so in perpetuity.

+ Rather than build on green belt/farming land, why don't colleges build on the massively underused sports grounds in west Cambridge; colleges already combine to share grounds and they could do more, and unlike the countryside, they currently are not accessible and do not promote diversity

College playing fields are protected under the current Cambridge Local Plan and cannot usually be developed. In any event, we believe that this site provides an excellent opportunity to provide much-needed new houses within Cambridge. The green belt can be assessed and reviewed through the creation of a new Local Plan, and the need for housing in a sustainable area can constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify releasing green belt land. Due to the site’s close proximity to the city centre, we envisage that people will travel by bus, on foot or by bike, making this development as sustainable as possible.

+ Currently Cambridge and the Villages of Barton, Grantchester, Coton and Madingley enjoy the mutual separation afforded by the Green Belt. This gives breathing space, both psychologically and physically. Were the scheme to be put in hand, the countryside to the west of Cambridge would start beyond Barton. How do the developers propose we should react to this?

The masterplan for the site proposes a substantial green wedge of countryside along the western site boundary, which feeds into the Coton Countryside Reserve. The M11 provides a physical edge to Cambridge and there will be no coalescence to neighbouring villages beyond these boundaries (including Barton Road).

+ Why build on Cambridge's Green Belt? Does the Consortium really expect the residents of Cambridge to sacrifice their Green Belt?

We understand this is an emotive issue. It should be noted however that the Green Belt at present offers very little in the way of public access and use. It is visual rather than physical space which can be enjoyed. The Councils will ultimately have to decide where to allocate new land. Our view is that the most sustainable sites should be chosen, consistent with the Council’s objective of being a low carbon City, with only limited need to use private cars. Previous Green Belt sites released have delivered much needed housing for Cambridge and for the many residents who have moved into their homes. Moreover, it is proposed that over half of the site remains in the green belt.

+ Cambridge has been committed to developing in necklace villages in order to preserve the Green Belt. Is this going to be the thin end of the wedge in terms of undermining/ destroying Green Belt policy?

As the Cambridge economy has grown, development has been pushed out to market towns and villages nearby, to meet the rising housing need. Cambridge suffers from significant congestion issues, and while some of these have been met by public transport improvements, the green belt around the city has pushed development further out, and people living in those areas have to access the city, thereby adding to the congestion problems. A site on the outskirts of the city centre could act as a good alternative to piecemeal sites further out of the centre. A more sustainable solution to minimise people’s need to travel is to look at land that is currently within the green belt.

+ In 2008 an appeal by Ashwell was rejected by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that any development would be harmful to the purposes of the Green Belt. What has changed in the opinion of the developer of the current proposal?

The 2008 challenge was about whether a Green Belt Review was required as part of the Cambridge Local Plan (adopted 2006) and was not specifically about the merits of the site. The judgement referred to the site north of Barton Road, but comments about it merely repeated what was said about it through the earlier Structure Plan process. Things have moved on since the Structure Plan was adopted in 2003, and the development promoted now seeks to address previous concerns in terms of how the site is being promoted.

This current proposal in any event reflects the growth that is now happening in the Cambridge sub-region. The plan process is a cycle that keeps moving forward and the councils have to project on the basis of economic indicators and the way jobs are coming forward. Job expectations have exceeded projections in Cambridge, and we want to provide housing as close to the jobs as possible. That means that there is a now an exceptional circumstance where green belt land can be released in order to provide much needed and sustainable housing.

+ The Issues & Options Technical Document determined that any development will 'spoil the setting of the city even if set back and landscaped'. Does this not apply to your scheme, too?

We are not sure exactly which document this refers to (there are many supporting ‘evidence base’ documents for the Local Plan). However, we are aware that in its recent published evidence for the Local Plan review, the Council has noted that releasing land from the Green Belt may impact the landscape setting of the City. This is a statement that needs to be considered alongside other benefits, including providing access to substantial open space, delivering new housing, and directing development to locations which minimise the need to travel.

+ What are the "exceptional circumstances" justifying building on green belt land?

Exceptional circumstances might apply in the case where a Local Plan is being reviewed, as is the case with this site. The green belt can be assessed and reviewed through the creation of a new Local Plan, and the need for housing in a sustainable area can constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify releasing green belt land.

+ Issues and Options 2008 also deemed that development would mean 'high quality soft green edge of the city would suffer significant negative impacts incapable of mitigation. This is pretty absolute. So why is your mitigation special?

What is proposed on this occasion is very different to previous site promotions. In this case, great care and attention has been paid to the landscape setting of both the site and of the City generally. Through careful siting and design, incorporation of open space corridors, and moderation of building heights with new planting the scheme can be well assimilated into the existing built edge of the City.

+ Traffic normally queues into Cambridge on Barton Road and queues through Barton on the A603 and B1046. Won't additional housing on Barton Road create more traffic problems, resulting in traffic backing up even further through our village of Barton?

We do not envisage additional traffic to be a significant issue, since this development will encourage the use of public transport, cycle routes and footpaths as part of travel. As we are at allocation stage, we have not finalised plans with the council with regards to cars. In due course, if the site gets to a planning application stage, there will be a fully comprehensive transport assessment undertaken, which will include looking into any potential impact on the village of Barton.

+ What is the percentage increase in traffic along Barton road predicted to be? Do you have any idea how much extra pollution this would create, especially in relation to legal pollution levels

In due course, any planning application would be accompanied by a full transport assessment, which would include a comprehensive assessment of traffic impacts on existing roads, including Barton Road. At this stage of site promotion that detailed work has not yet been done; however, it is not foreseen that there would be insuperable issues to address. When the site was promoted in the past, the Highway Authority had no in-principle objections to access from Barton Road or in regard to traffic impact. One of the benefits of this proposal is that it involves the intended development of a site in a highly sustainable location, where cycling, walking and use of public transport is a very real alternative to use of the private car.

+ Will there be a through road link Barton Road with the Madingley Road as part of the development?

No through route is envisaged other than for buses during peak periods. There would be a bus gate within the development along the lines you can see at Eddington. Clerk Maxwell Road is not proposed for car access but may be part of a new bus route.

+ Can you give any reassurance that cycling and walking will be a priority for the site? Provision in Eddington is patchy, with significant weak links for cycling provision and doesn’t always meet current DoT standards.

Our Masterplan has been designed to ensure that cycling and walking are easy and accessible means of getting around the site. New residents will benefit from bus routes into the city, but also from new walking and cycle routes that head into Cambridge. As we are still at allocation stage, the specific routes have not yet been finalised, but we can confirm our commitment to providing sustainable and accessible transport across the site.

+ What improvements (if any) will be made to existing cycle and walking paths outside of the new development?

This scheme is well placed to deliver new footpath and cycleway infrastructure and its highly accessible location means it is uniquely well placed compared to other spatial options, to encourage sustainable transport choices. If it becomes apparent that some local networks which this development will feed into require improvement or upgrading, then this will certainly be looked at.

+ I noticed there was a "potential" new road to Coton from the development. What would be the need/use for this as there is already a road?

We suspect this is a proposed footpath. There is no intention to run a road across the M11 to Coton.

+ What new bus stops/ routes will be provided?

At this stage, it is too early to be specific about which routes and stops might be accessible across the site. However, new residents in the development will have access both to existing and new bus routes, as a key focus of this development is to prioritise public transport use over car use.

+ How much car parking is included (a) for residents, and (b) for visitors to the facilities?

Careful consideration would be given to parking requirements and whilst standards are prescribed for development by the Councils, given the site’s location we would seek to reduce this requirement in consultation with the relevant authorities in order to create a more sustainable development.

+ Has thought been given to commuter parking?

It has been considered in the past because – at one time – the authorities were considering a possible park and ride site close to the M11 junction. As far as we are aware this is no longer being promoted as an idea and so is not part of the current proposals.

+ Why does the Master Plan not take any of the various transport developments into account showing how the plan would change depending which is selected? There are a variety of transport plans under consideration including the guided busway from Cambourne, Cambridge Metro and the new rail link between Cambridge and Oxford.

A number of these transport developments are still ongoing, so we have been unable to include them in our plans at this stage. The Vision document at present is indicative of our thoughts, as we are still at allocation stage. If our site is included in the next Local Plan we will of course take transport developments into account when thinking about the layout for the site.

+ How do the C2C and CAM transport projects integrate with the development?

If the local authorities decide that the best route for the busway would take it through out site, then we would help to facilitate the completion of this project. We will work with the authorities depending on what solution comes out of their ongoing process to establish future travel options in and around Cambridge.

+ Your website shows the busway going along Adams Road. Why has your plan not incorporated the recent changes to this plan? How will the proposed Rifle Range route affect your plans?

Our Vision document was created before changes were made to the Cambridge Transport Plan. As our scheme evolves, we will continue to update all imagery to indicate where new bus routes will go. We have amended the vision document available on our website to incorporate this recent change.

+ Is it planned to run the guided bus through this development? Is it a sneaky way of solving the guided bus issue? If so, where will it exit into Grange Rd?

We have not had in-depth conversation with local authorities about potential bus routes. However, as things progress, we will work with the authorities depending on what solution comes out of their ongoing process to establish future travel options in and around Cambridge. It has not yet been decided where any future route would run.

+ There is talk of a "green corridor", but this is also the area that the document suggests the C2C and CAM would pass through isn't it?

If the local authorities decide that the best route for the busway would take it through out site, then we would help to facilitate the completion of this project. We will work with the authorities depending on what solution comes out of their ongoing process to establish future travel options in and around Cambridge. There will be a dedicated green corridor running through the site that will not be impacted by any transport route.

+ The latest plans for the Cambourne busway show it running south of the University sports ground and then along Rifle Range Road to Grange Road. How will that route affect the plans for "Aldermanne" in the north-east corner of the development?

The busway can be accommodated along any alignment and we note that the Rifle Range route is now the preferred route, contrary to the position when our Vision Document was completed in Feb 2020 when Adams Road was the preferred route. The masterplan is still an evolving document but shows a design intent. It will be subject to ongoing consultation up to and including when a planning application is eventually submitted (if the site is allocated).

+ What steps are being taken to reduce energy consumption?

The site’s proximity to the City Centre and other activity [employment] centres such as West Cambridge will encourage people to use more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport, significantly reducing the demand for the private car and thus reducing both the scheme’s overall carbon footprint but also improving air quality. In terms of new development there are a number of changes being planned by the Government in making homes more sustainable, in the form of the Future Homes Standards which, it is intended, will deliver zero carbon ready homes from 2025. Key to this will be that new homes will not be built with fossil fuel heating and it is anticipated that heat pumps will become the primary heating technology for new homes.

+ What percentage of the houses would be passive houses?

It is too early to say for certain that passive houses would be proposed; however the consortium members are committed to delivering a highly energy efficient development so this will be looked at very carefully indeed.

+ If housing built now is permitted to be “low carbon”, how will this ensure they are zero carbon by 2050 (I assume they have a projected lifespan well past that)? Shouldn’t they be built as zero carbon now?

We will carefully assess the low carbon targets for the development as we get closer to a potential planning application, but we envisage the proposal embracing the Councils’ ambitions for a zero carbon City by 2050. It is too early to say definitively what level of carbon reduction will be targeted for this scheme but we would expect it to be market leading and the consortium are extremely keyed into this topic.

+ I agree that biodiversity is very important and could certainly be improved in the area being discussed. But could this not be improved more effectively without houses being built? There will be thousands - possible tens of thousands - of people living on land that is currently green belt. Wildlife and plant life that is currently here - and it is very diverse - will be displaced.

At the moment, it is largely agricultural land and is therefore somewhat limited in what it can provide in terms of biodiversity. We believe this site is well placed to support that requirement in a sustainable way that will also be able to support other linked initiatives such as enhancing biodiversity. New development would help fund these improvements.

As part of the project team, we have landscape architects and ecologists who are looking at ways in which we can create a sustainable community, such as through the proposed allotments,, water meadows and new & varied parkland within additional tree planting.

+ You talk about the carbon-neutral agenda. How can this be achieved, given that occupied buildings generate carbon outputs and these homes will bring thousands of cars onto what is currently a green belt, non-residential site with no cars?

We do not envisage this to be a car-heavy development. Our Masterplan takes a landscape-led approach to the site, with pedestrians, cyclists and public transport being prioritised over cars. Whilst we can’t at this point confirm the exact strategies that will be undertaken at the development, we can confirm our commitment to focusing on sustainability and a carbon-neutral agenda.

+ Who decided that biodiversity and rewilding were primary considerations for Cambridge residents when considering the virtues of new development in the City? Was there a referendum?

The City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council are committed to seeing a biodiversity net gain when new development takes place. The consortium is seeking to respond positively to that ambition, which it shares entirely. We are not aware of any referendum but the new Local Plan will provide details of the Councils’ policy approach and residents can comment on that in any representations they wish to make.

+ I note the plan for water meadows. In this low lying region there are mosquitoes throughout the year. Has this been considered?

It has not yet been considered but we will take it away and consider if specific measures can be adopted to reduce any potential adverse impacts.

+ How can an extra 2,800 houses near the centre of Cambridge reduce air pollution which is high in the city and is now causing deaths and illness?

Promoting a site which is in such close proximity to the City Centre should help encourage a move by people to more sustainable modes of transport, such as walking, cycling and the use of public transport. This will reduce the reliance upon the private motor car on the roads which will dramatically improve not only air quality [but also safety]. Other sites further away from the City may encourage more in-commuting along arterial roads such as Barton Road and Madingley Road.

+ How will the council ensure air pollution in this area does not exceed National Air Quality limits?

When the council undertakes the site selection process, they will consult with a number of statutory authorities on the suitability of sites: this will include an air quality assessment. When the site was promoted for the last Local Plan, it was concluded that air quality would not be a barrier to development taking place. As we are at allocation stage, a full air quality assessment has not been undertaken yet, however, that will have to happen in future. Our plans seek to minimise the need for the car and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, thereby improving air quality.

+ Are you taking water consumption into account - there are huge concerns over large reduction in water levels in the Cam and other watercourses as a result of water extraction. 2,800 new houses will have a very large, further detrimental impact on water levels in our rivers and streams which are already under threat

We are acutely aware of issues appertaining to new water provision, which clearly apply to all potential new development sites, whether this one or others. We will engage with water providers, including Water Resources East (as we know the Councils are too) in order to ensure that water supply is planned to accommodate projected levels of growth and that this development does not impact on water levels in nearby rivers and streams. We are working with consulting engineers on this issue and will address water supply issues as part of the development of the proposals.

+ Planning has been turned down on parts of this site because of flood risk, and flooding has been a major problem for residents of Gough Way. Is building in a floodplain a good idea, or do you think you can control flooding with the plans for rewilding the Bin Brook?

We are aware that there have been flooding issues in the area, such as near Gough Way, and that this is associated with Bin Brook. We believe that development on this site can help to deal with some of these issues. As part of our proposals, this site has the potential to host a water storage facility, which will mitigate a lot of the existing problems. As we are still at the land promotion stage, we have not produced a detailed, modelled flood risk assessment, but we have sought advice from flood risk and draining engineers to help address the challenges associated with this site. We will look to include these technicians at our more detailed webinars.

+ Why can’t the landowners implement a water retention scheme on the land to mitigate the existing flood risk without building on the greenbelt, which would cause more run-off and increased flood risk?

We would expect to deliver a flood-resilient development by enhancing local flood water capacity through measures such as widened channels with weirs, offline or online flood storage reservoirs, floodplain creation. The advantage the landowners have is that they can deliver these enhancements due to the amount of land that can be dedicated to solving the issue. As part of our proposals, we have consulted experts for flood advise. In future, should the site reach a planning application stage, we would undertake a comprehensive flood risk assessment to find appropriate solutions.

+ When is a comprehensive flood study to be undertaken?

This would be done as part of a planning application in due course, but we have established clear parameters for this already, and could accelerate a study should the Councils wish to see one as part of the site allocation process.

+ What is the danger of a ‘rewilded’ bin brook flooding surrounding areas again?

Any proposals for Bin Brook would be specifically designed to ensure that flooding is addressed.

+ A 15-year time horizon is wholly inappropriate for flooding problems: can you reassure us that a LONG TERM view will be taken?

Absolutely. We are aware of the flooding issues within the locality and will take every measure to ensure this is not a problem for future residents. We will ensure that flood mitigation measures are resilient in the long term, capable of accommodating 1 in 1000 year events, allowing for climate change. We have the benefit of sufficient land to ‘play with’ that we can address these issues on site via water retention and sustainable drainage.

+ It's surprising how much noise nuisance from the M11 affects the new communities at Trumpington Meadows, Eddington and, to a lesser extent, Darwin Green. While some measures were adopted, much more could have been done. An important aspect of quality of life for residents - that of ambient or background noise (especially at night) has, in my view and that of other well informed observers, been overlooked. Could you comment on this, please, with regard to your proposals?

We will be taking steps to ensure that noise pollution is not an issue in the new development. We will be planting a woodland, setting homes 250m back from the main road, and we are looking at the possibility of earth mounding as an additional barrier. We will keep this issue firmly in mind as the proposals develop and will take the necessary expert advice to overcome any concerns.

+ Where exactly are the earth bunds proposed to block noise from the M11? They are only shown on a very short stretch just by the J12 slip-road. What about the rest of the site northwards towards J13?

The earth bunds are provisionally designed to screen views and noise from the M11 and are located to the south of the site alongside the M11. To the north, where the site is elevated above the motorway and so noise is not such an issue but new woodland planting is proposed in this location to visually separate the site. The area between is not within the ownership of the clients, being managed by CPPF.

+ What will be the impact on food production?

We do not think the impact will be significant. The need for new housing in the area means that some agricultural land is going to have to be given up for development. That will happen irrespective of where development takes place. Our view is that this is a far superior site to many other contenders, and developed efficiently, at an appropriate density, will reduce overall impact on food producing land. The scheme will also include allotments, allowing existing and proposed residents to grow their own produce.

+ Our house shakes every time a lorry goes past on Barton Road. This development will involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of heavily ladened lorries to pass down Barton Road. What protection will you be putting in place to prevent damage to our house and deterioration of the road?

The new development would be covered by a Considerate Contractors Scheme (https://www.ccscheme.org.uk/) which governs things like access and working hours relating to construction projects and this would be agreed with local authorities prior to commencement of building works.

In relation to damage to houses and deterioration to roads, this is a matter for the local highway authority to ensure the roads are in good condition at all times. The landowners will assist wherever possible to minimise disruption to residents.