9.71 Cambourne is an existing new settlement established in the 1980’s under previous
Structure Plan provisions, with an intended capacity of around 3,300 dwellings. It is
located on the A428 some 14.7 kms west of Cambridge. Around 700 dwellings have
already been constructed and the development of a business park and shopping centre
started.

9.72 Cambourne was not among the new settlement locations considered by the SPAs
(Structure Plan Authorities) in their
selection process but was included in the long list of potential locations assessed by the
Buchanan Study. At that time, it was included in the ‘lower priority’ category of sites, as
against the options listed as ‘higher priority’ (Longstanton/Oakington, Waterbeach, Great
Abington and Childerley Gate), principally because of dwelling capacity constraints.
However, the Study recognised that Cambourne had some claim to be considered as a
‘higher priority’ site in view of its decisive strength in terms of being relatively close to
Cambridge, landscape and environmental suitability, good access to park and ride
facilities and relative ease of development. It was left in the ‘lower priority’ category
because of perceived design and sustainability problems inherent in expanding from its
present envelope to the 6,000-10,000 dwelling range required by a new settlement.

9.73 At the EIP it emerged that the expansion of Cambourne was being promoted not so much
as a straightforward alternative to Longstanton/Oakington as a complementary
development capable of contributing more effectively to the housing requirements of the
Cambridge Sub-Region in the medium term. This was based on the premise that it was
unlikely that the new settlement at Longstanton/Oakington will be capable of delivering
6,000 dwellings by 2016 due to the lengthy planning processes involved, potential delays
in completion of transport improvements and unrealistic build rates. It was suggested that
Cambourne might also be a more reliable alternative to some of the other strategic
development sites involving Green Belt releases to the east of Cambridge.

9.74 A number of propositions for the expansion of Cambourne were included in the
documentation put to us. These included the intensification of the existing Masterplan
proposals by increasing the density of development (already the subject of a planning
application) which would involve an increase from the design size of 3,300 up to 5,000
dwellings.

In addition, there were three proposals for physical expansion of the site: to the
east on to the disused Bourn Airfield, to the west of the present development, and to the
north of the A428.

We have not regarded it as part of our remit to examine the respective
merits of these proposals but rather to consider the general principle of an expansion of
Cambourne as part of strategic development for the Sub-Region. We note, however, that
development on Bourn Airfield is an option that has already been subject to previous
testing at public inquiry (in 1992) and was found to be a suitable development site in
principle by the Secretary of State.

9.75 Although Cambourne did not figure in the SPAs’ selection process it does appear to have
a number of strengths when assessed against the same criteria. It is only a little further
from the centre of Cambridge than either Longstanton/ Oakington or Waterbeach and has
reasonably good access via the A428/Madingley Road. It is close to the expanding
University sites in west Cambridge and has good access to other employment locations
north of Cambridge via the A14. The dualling of the A428 from Caxton Common to
Hardwick, due to be completed by 2006, will improve the approach into Cambridge and
provide an opportunity to introduce a high quality public transport system along the old
A428 alignment. There is no flood risk and further technical investigation undertaken by
the promoters indicates that previous concerns identified by the Buchanan Study about
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan EIP Panel Report Chapter 9 New Settlement
foul water drainage and surface water drainage are not serious and can easily be resolved.
There are no environmental or other designations affecting the site, nor any Grade 1
agricultural land. Development on Bourn Airfield would involve some use of previously
developed land.

9.76 The SPAs and South Cambridgeshire District Council were, however, strongly opposed to
any significant enlargement of the Cambourne site, although it was recognised that a
modest re-assessment of capacity within the existing Masterplan envelope might be
acceptable. The principal concerns were that a major expansion introduced at this stage of
Cambourne’s growth would be disruptive to the carefully planned evolution of the
community, its environment and facilities and would break assurances given to incoming
residents and those in nearby villages that Cambourne would not expand further.

9.77 Whilst the Panel understands these arguments it is clear from all that we heard at the EIP
that there is a general recognition that Cambourne as conceived at present does not
represent a particularly sustainable community. The densities on which it is designed
(around 15-20 dwellings per hectare) do not meet PPG3 requirements and although the
settlement will provide a range of facilities, its size is insufficient to support the full range
and quality of services required by the resident population, notably a secondary school
and a wider range of employment opportunities. The proposed relocation of the South
Cambridgeshire Council offices to the business park suggests that Cambourne could be
set to become the administrative heart of the District. It was suggested that instead of
being a modest new village expansion Cambourne could aspire to become a small
sustainable Market Town with a wider range of services, jobs and facilities.

9.78 We can see the force in these arguments. The planning environment in which Cambourne
was originally conceived has changed and it would be wrong to leave the settlement as it
is if a more sustainable community can be achieved. Expansion might provide not only a
wider range of facilities for residents but also the critical mass to support a high quality
public transport system to Cambridge, achieved through developer contributions via a renegotiated
Section 106 agreement.

9.79 A key question is whether further development at Cambourne is needed in order to meet
the housing and related requirements of the Sub-Region. In terms of the sequential
approach to the choice of locations it comes lower in the priority list than development in
and around Cambridge itself, including the Green Belt release sites on the edge of the
city. We are also satisfied that it is not an alternative to the new settlement at
Longstanton/Oakington. In our proposed changes to the housing allocations in Policy
P9/2 (see Chapter 7) Cambourne would count as a previously established new settlement
alongside Market Towns and rural centres. This provides South Cambridgeshire District
Council with the opportunity to review the scale of growth at Cambourne in the context of
the overall allocation to the District under this heading. It seems at least possible that
expansion at Cambourne may be more sustainable than some of the existing commitments
in villages elsewhere in South Cambridgeshire.

9.80 In addition, there may be scope for Cambourne to provide both flexibility in the event of
any shortfall in the delivery of housing later in the Plan period at other strategic sites,
including the new settlement, and an opportunity for contributing to the continued growth
of the Sub-Region in the longer term, alongside the possibility of a second new
settlement. The precise scale and phasing of development will be a matter for South
Cambridgeshire District Council to determine in the context of preparing the next Local
Plan or Local Development Framework. This should be done in consultation with partner
LPAs and other stakeholders