NEW NEIGHBOURHOODS IN CAMBRIDGE An evaluation of new developments, Cambridgeshire Quality Panel's role in raising their quality, and potential lessons for other growth areas

Abstract

This report evaluates housing schemes in Cambridge and the role of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in maintaining quality. It aims to determine if the high standards seen in Cambridge can be replicated elsewhere in the UK.

The report highlights the success of Cambridgeshire in delivering high-quality new neighbourhoods through strategic planning, innovative design, and collaborative efforts. Given the support of the local community, the lessons learned from Cambridge can be applied to other areas in the UK to improve housing quality and meet growth targets.
The involvement of the Quality Panel, adherence to the Quality Charter, and early planning are critical components for replicating Cambridgeshire's achievements.

"Whether the Cambridge experience is replicable depends on whether people are willing to work together, to find leaders, develop the ambition, produce the evidence and win over hearts and minds to the big idea."

Supported and funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Cambridgeshire County Council

Full text

NEW NEIGHBOURHOODS
IN CAMBRIDGE
An evaluation of new developments, Cambridgeshire
Quality Panel’s role in raising their quality, and potential
lessons for other growth areas
1 June 2024
Stephen Platt
Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd

Acknowledgements
Sarah Allan, MHCLG
Tim Watkins, Cambridgeshire CC
Peter Studdert
Robin Nicholson, Chair CQP
David Birkbeck, Design for Homes
The Hill Group
Janet Owers
Amy Glover
All photographs by the author unless otherwise acknowledged.
New neighbourhoods in Cambridge: an evaluation of new developments, Cambridgeshire Quality Panel’s role in raising
their quality, and potential lessons for other growth areas Published by Cambridgeshire County Council
Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd
Funded by Ministry of Housing & Communities (MH) and Cambridgeshire County Council
© Stephen Platt 2024
ISBN 978-1-912460-68-7
All rights reserved.
Cover image: Abode, Great Kneighton

Summary 4
Introduction 4
Innovation in the planning process 4
New housing typologies 4
Relevance for other places 5
Conclusion 5
Introduction 6
Method 8
1. What’s dierent about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge 9
1.1 Six schemes case-studied 11
1.2 Density and housing layouts 13
2. Background 16
2.1 Cambridge Futures 16
2.2 Leadership and political buy-in 19
2.3 Evidence base 20
2.4 Quality charter and 4Cs 21
3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel 22
3.1 Impact of the Panel on the quality of housing 23
3.2 Formation of the Panel 24
3.3 Whereittsintheplanningprocess 25
3.4 Relationswithocersand members 26
3.5 Relations with applicants - developers and design teams 27
4. Lessons from Cambridge 28
4.1 Design codes and master plans 28
4.2 Sustainability and climate change 29
4.3 Highways and car-parking 31
4.4 Landscape and spaces between buildings 33
4.5 Community 35
4.6 Phasing, timing and delivering community infrastructure 37
4.7 Ambition of the applicant 38
5. Relevance for other places 39
5.1 Relevance of the quality charter, 4Cs and the Quality Panel 40
5.2 Relevance of new housing typologies 41
5.3 Overcoming barriers 43
Conclusions 45
Appendix: The Six Schemes 47
1. Darwin Green 48
2. Eddington 52
3. Marleigh 56
4. Great Kneighton 60
5. Northstowe 64
6. North Ely 68
People interviewed 72
Contents
3

Summary
This report evaluates housing schemes in Cambridge and the role of the
Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in maintaining quality. It aims to determine if
the high standards seen in Cambridge can be replicated elsewhere in the UK.
Innovation in the planning process
Cambridge Futures
Initiated in 1997, Cambridge Futures brought together key stakeholders to explore growth
options,resultinginsignicantchangesinattitudestowardsdevelopment.
Leadership and political buy-In
Critical political support and leadership from local authorities and the University of
Cambridge drove the ambitious growth strategy.
Quality Charter and 4Cs
The Quality Charter, identifying the principles of Community, Connectivity, Climate, and
Character, was pivotal in guiding development.
Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
The Quality Panel, established in 2010, played a crucial role in maintaining high standards in
new developments. The Panel serves as an expert critical friend to developers and planning
ocers,ensuringadherencetohigh-qualitystandards.
New housing typologies
Case studies of six large housing schemes show that:
• New housing in Cambridge achieves higher densities without compromising quality.
• The introduction of innovative housing types, with reduced back-to-back distances and
some reallocation of private open space on terraces and in courtyards.
• Developments like Great Kneighton have won multiple Housing Design Awards, setting a
benchmark for quality housing.
4

Replication of Cambridge’s success
The Cambridge model, including the Quality Charter and Quality Panel, can be applied
elsewhere with the right political and community support.
Relevance of new housing typologies
Innovative housing designs from Cambridge have been adapted to other areas to achieve
higher density and better quality.
Overcoming barriers
Political consensus and community engagement are essential for successful large-scale
developments.
Relevance for other places
The report highlights the success of Cambridge in delivering high-quality new
neighbourhoods through strategic planning, innovative design, and collaborative
eorts. Given the support of the local community, the lessons learned from Cambridge
can be applied to other areas in the UK to improve housing quality and meet growth
targets. The involvement of the Quality Panel, adherence to the Quality Charter, and
early planning are critical components for replicating Cambridge’s achievements.
Conclusion
Key worker''' housing with internal courtyard designed by Delft-based architects, Mecanoo, Eddington
5

Introduction
This report reviews the role of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in promoting
placemaking in Cambridgeshire. It also assesses whether the high quality of the new
housing and new neighbourhoods in Cambridge can be replicated elsewhere.
One of the UK Government’s priorities is to support growth, and to make sure the planning
system plays its part in delivery. But growth is not always easy to deliver since people tend
to oppose major changes and because we need to balance growth with environmental and
socialconcerns.Cambridgeoersuslessonsinhowtoconfrontthisdilemma.
ThereportdescribeshowpeopleinCambridgeovercamethebarrierstogrowththatstie
development and how quality can be delivered in new housing and the built environment.1
The intended audience are ministers in UK Departments of Housing and Communities and
Transport,councillorsandocersinlocalplanningauthoritiesandanyoneelseconnected
with delivering new places in the UK. The report is supported by the Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government and by Cambridgeshire County Council.
There has been a considerable growth in housing in
and around Cambridge over the last 10 years and the
quality is widely considered to be higher than in many
parts of the country. The key question is whether this
improvement in quality can be replicated elsewhere in
the UK?
In the past decade the number of new homes delivered in Cambridgeshire has climbed
sharply from about 2,000 a year to 5,000 (see below). This growth has come at a time when
the number of new homes delivered in England dipped to 158,000 in 2023.
Cambridgeshire is home to about one-quarter of 1% of
England’s population but is delivering nearly 3% of the
country’s new homes.
1 Platt S (2015) Overcoming barriers to growth. In Eds E. Lazarević, M. Vukmirović, A. Krstić-Furundžić, A. Đukić Keeping Up with Technologies to Improve Places
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
2 Live tables on housing supply: net additional dwellings 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-net-supply-of-housing
New-build completions in Cambridgeshire. Housing growth has more than doubled
over the last 10 years.2
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
02013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023
6

Introduction
NewhousinginCambridgeiswidelyregardedasbeingofasignicantlyhigherqualitythan
elsewhere,andtheQualityCharterandQualityPanelarethoughttohavemadeasignicant
contribution to raising standards. However, it is not all perfect. What is striking, as anyone
inthedevelopmentsectorknows,ishowdicultitistodeliverlargeschemes.Sothisis
a review of ‘warts an’ all’ since the lessons lie in understanding the failings as well as the
evident successes.
The six reviewed schemes are: Darwin Green, Eddington, Great Kneighton and Marleigh in the city, and North
Ely and Northstowe in the County.
Development, on the scale seen in Cambridge, takes years if not decades. Of the six schemes
reviewedinthisreportonlyGreatKneightonislargelynished,alltheothersareathirdor
less complete. These are not the only new housing schemes in Cambridge and we might
have chosen others (See map above). However, they are reasonably representative of
housing being built in Cambridge now.
7

Introduction
Method
The method used to evaluate the six large new housing schemes and the role of the design
review Quality Panel in the planning process was qualitative.
It involved the following steps:
1. Analysing Panel reports to identify the things the Panel commented on or
tried to inuence.
2. Interviewing people involved in the schemes – Panel members, ocers,
developers, designers and residents.
3. Site visits to the schemes with the people available.
4. A workshop with Panel members to review the ndings.
The bulk of the text is based on what people said in interviews
or the workshop.
Panel members on the site visit to Darwin Green
8

A less documented aspect of successful growth in Cambridge has been how new
house types built in place of apartments helped ride out dips in the housing market
condence caused by disruptions, such as the loss of condence in apartments after
the Grenfell disaster in June 2017.
Development patterns introduced at Great Kneighton
have achieved developable coverage equal to
apartments while capping buildings to 4-5 storeys.
Because of their ability to deliver an increase in the number of new homes, housing types
pioneered in Cambridge have been replicated elsewhere. New housing types that would have
been vetoed in the past by councils up and down the country are now being accepted in places
suchasCrosbynearLiverpool,OughtibridgenearSheeld,inTowerHamletsandbythe
Ministry of Housing in Ireland. Many examples in the draft standards for Sustainable Compact
Settlements prepared by the Government of Ireland in August 2023 are from Cambridge.3
1. What’s dierent about new
neighbourhoods in Cambridge
House types at Great Kneighton, built by Countryside Properties and designed by Proctor and Matthews
Architects. Photographer © Tim Crocker
3 Sustainable and Compact Settlements - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2023) Ministry of Housing. Local Government and Heritage.
9

1. What’s dierent about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
The new typologies provide an uplift of 25-35% compared with traditional housing types.
Although the amount of open space given over to private gardens is reduced the houses
havethebenetofanindividualfrontdoorandprivateoutdoorspaceatupperlevels.They
are also built without unsaleable common parts, costly lifts and land-hungry communal
parking required by most apartment blocks. Many of the new Cambridge developments
achieve densities of 45 dph-plus using above average-sized houses (150 to 320sqm) in a mix
that is rarely less than 60% houses to 40% apartments.
The main dierences between new housing in
Cambridge and new housing in much of the rest of
the UK are higher density, better materials, more
landscaping, and less private open space in gardens and
more in courtyards and terraces.
From 2014 to 2024 housing developments in Cambridge have won 11 Housing Design
Awards. These include 4 at Great Kneighton and 3 at Eddington. During the same period, the
largest cities in England (excluding London) achieved fewer.
This suggests that the people living in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool,
Nottingham,Leicester,Derby,Sheeld,Bristol,Oxford,Worcester,Swindon,Newcastleupon
Tyne, Sunderland, Middlesborough, Southampton, Exeter and Plymouth (>15 million people)
had less access to excellent new homes than the 150,000 people living in Cambridge.
Abode has achieved high densities with good landscaping and on-street parking
10

1. What’s different about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
1.1 Six schemes case-studied
Scheme Total
units
% Built
to date
Total area
ha (redline
boundary)
Developable
area ha
Public
open
space
%
Gross
density
dph
Net
density
dph
Parking
spaces
/d
Aordable
Darwin
Green 1 1,780 17% 53 37 30% 30 48 1.4 40%
Eddington 3,000 37% 150 80 47% 38 53 0.6 N/A
Great
Kneighton 2,163 100% 109 40 64% 20 55 1.5 40%
Marleigh 1,300 25% 52 23 56% 25 57 1.5 30%
Northstowe 10,000 14% 432 302 30% 23 40+ 1.8 41%
North Ely 3,000 25% 216 86 60%
Abode at Great Kneighton is exceptionally good. Not only is it high density (55 dph) relative
to traditional housing estates built at the edge of towns (typically at 25-30 dph) but it is low-
rise, the neighbourhood is intimate, generously landscaped with all local services and
amenities provided.
Eddington is also exceptional, but here the University of Cambridge, as landowner and
developer, is taking the long view and is investing in not only the future of the place it is
creating, but also in the future vitality and viability of University research. There are lessons
for other places in the ambition, master-planning, landscaping and build quality.
Darwin Green and Marleigh, the other two schemes in the city, are catering for a slightly
differentmarket,buthousebuildershaveraisedtheirgametoproducehighquality,higher
densityurbanneighbourhoods.DarwinGreenhassufferedfromeconomicrealitiesof
development in challenging times, and essential services – schools, parks, supermarkets,
health centre etc. – are still missing. Both look a little barren and treeless. They are, however,
still less than half complete and will eventually grow into attractive, thriving
neighbourhoods.
North Ely and Phase 1 of Northstowe are what some Panel members described as ‘good
ordinary’.InNorthEly,HopkinsHomessetahighstandardoffinishandprovidedavarietyof
types of home, The streetscape, however, is poor. Northstowe will eventually be a town of
25,000 people. On Phase 1 a Northstowe style is emerging of tall town houses with
distinctive gable ends. However, most homes are the conventional housebuilder types. Both
North Ely and Northstowe are less than a quarter complete. In North Ely it will probably be
more of the same, but not the same quality, and in Northstowe new housing types are
emerging with renewed ambition from Homes England for it to be exemplary.
11

1. What’s dierent about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
In terms of the bigger picture, the master planning and design development of all six
schemeswasdrivenbythedictatesoftheroadlayout,theamountofoorspaceneededto
makeitstackupcommercially,andthefactthatitalltakessolongandfortherstfewyears
there may be a lack of facilities and services.
All the schemes, except for Northstowe, are extensions into the green edge of Cambridge
and Ely. All are potentially well connected to cycleways or bus links to city centres, places
of employment and countryside. However, there are some issues that impact the planning
and design.
Darwin Green is a long thin site and parcels have been arranged lengthwise, which has
created problems which a succession of designers have failed to successfully resolve. The
primary street, like those in Northstowe and Marleigh, is too wide and inhospitable. There
is no vehicular way through from Huntington Road in the south to Histon Road in the
north. Consequently the two ends of the schemes, Darwin Green and Franklin Gardens, are
separated. A bus gate in the main square had been planned but has gone, so there is no
through route except for bikes/pedestrians.
Similarly, in Northstowe the separation of cycleways has had a negative impact on the main
streets with little or no shade trees to mitigate summertime heat. Footpaths to the busway
areill-denedandinadequate.InNorthElythecycleinfrastructureisunconnectedtothe
city centre. Adoption of the cycleway and signage appear to be the reason, which should be
easilyrectiedbytheresponsibleauthority.
Great Kneighton works as a neighbourhood, with an exceptional community / health centre,
but is not really part of Cambridge and feels separate. Pedestrian and cycle connections to the
emerging South Cambridge railway station across the country park will be a big improvement.
The schemes are reviewed in more detail in the Appendix.
The beautiful Storey’s Field Centre community hall at Eddington designed by McInnes Usher McKnight
Architects (MUMA)
12

1. What’s different about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
1.2 Density and housing layouts
Higher density living is achieved elegantly and generously at Great Kneighton. Photographer © Tim Crocker
New housing in Cambridge is twice the average density of conventional housebuilder
estates up and down the land. It achieves this by dealing creatively with private, semi-
private and public space in a way which reduces the need for conventional size private
gardens. Accordia, constructed between 2003-11, came at the right time and people
recognised that bespoke house types could provide a high density that did not mean
small and cramped.
The Quality Panel helped the evolution of several housing types and layout forms pioneered
inCambridgebygivingcondencetoplanningocersandmembers.Chiefamongthese
wassupportfortransgressingtheyardsticksrstintroducedin1919bytheTudorWalters
report designed to prevent town cramming and unsanitary housing conditions but which
havestiedinnovation.Manylocalplansspecifyminimumback-to-backdistancesof21m
and the South Cambridgeshire Design Guide refers to 25m.
The rules for minimal distances between principal windows and back garden depths
effectivelycappedlow-risedevelopmentdensityat35dph,obligingdeveloperscompeting
in high-land value areas to abandon the most popular own-door street-access house for
apartments. But apartment buildings have common parts, such as lifts which are expensive
tobuildandmaintain,leadingtounaordablehighmanagementcharges,attening
demand where management charges are less familiar to households, such as in the
Cambridge area, and suppressing the number of homes delivered.
13

1. What’s dierent about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
PeterBarberArchitectswereoneofthersttoreinterprettheVictorianback-to-backhouse
type in their McGrath Road housing in Newham, London.4 In Cambridge, in Great Kneighton
for example, the new house types achieve higher densities by shrinking the minimum
distance between each house’s principal exterior walls and by reallocating some private
outdoor space given over as garden to outdoor space within the house footprint in terraces,
balconies and courtyards. Overlooking is avoided by careful design, for example with
notchedupperoorplansandwindowstothesideratherthantotherear.
Therearesignicantbenetsfromhigherdensity,includingecientuseofland,economies
of scale, reduced travel distances and times, less pollution from motor vehicles and
increased access to services. As Cambridge demonstrates, higher densities do not have to
result in town cramming or poor environments.
Higher densities make more things possible. Higher density releases the potential to provide
more community facilities and public transport infrastructure. More homes (and not just
apartments) and a greater mix of types to sell that increases sales rates and delivers a
salesreceiptfordeveloperstohelpnancemorecommunityfacilities,betterlandscape,
and public transport infrastructure. New housing in Cambridge is typically 2 to 3 times the
average coverage rate of conventional housebuilder estate patterns at 7,000 to 10,000 sqm
per hectare.5 It achieves this by redistributing some private open space, designing creatively
to avoid overlooking, and incorporating car parking either within the ground storey of the
dwelling or on street.
Crucially it achieves the much higher development intensity without resorting to apartments
which are more expensive to build and maintain, have a narrower market and so restrict sales
and delivery rates. The maximum permissible height is 4-5 storeys and most new housing in
Cambridge is 2-4 storeys. This makes better use of land by more intensive development. Only
20% of the homes among the 2300 at Great Kneighton are in traditional apartment blocks
whereas 60% are normal houses and 20% are duplex units with their own front door.
The model of standard housebuilders is unsustainable
– it’s proigate of materials, and nobody has really
grasped the nettle of density. The economic use of land
– that’s ultimately what it’s about.
Sustainable development needs a critical mass of people able to support retail, employment,
education and public transport. It is widely accepted that a minimum density of 60 dph6
is required to support a tram service in urban areas.7 The six schemes studied, apart from
North Ely, have a net density of 50-60 dph. However, the gross density is much lower
because all the schemes have generous amounts of public open space.
4 Peter Barber Architects reinterprets Victorian back-to-back housing in London https://www.dezeen.com/2019/03/25/peter-barber-architects-mcgrath-road-
housing-london/
5 30,000 to 45,000 sq ft to the acre
6 Density is measured by dwellings per hectare (dph). Although not perfect, since it takes no account of number of occupants or floor area, it is widely
understood and accepted
7 Better neighbourhoods - Making higher densities work (2004 ) CABE.
Compact residential development - making more ecient use of land (2023) Crawley Borough Council
Measurement for planning and development purposes (2021) RICS
14

1. What’s different about new neighbourhoods in Cambridge
Housing Layouts for 2 bed and 4 bed courtyard houses at
Abode, Great Kneighton
Eddington is growing from its core at a higher
density than was agreed 15 years ago because
designers looked at their plots and thought the
natural capacity of the site was higher. This has
led the University to rethink the current master
plan. The average density on the built area of
Phase 1 is about 62 dph, and about 50% of the
red line is open green space. If you roll that
average over the remaining land, you get well
over 5,000 units. But the permission for Phase 2
is for 3,000 units. So this will need a new master
plan and a new permission.
The wider the product mix, the more chance
the developer has something to suit the
person visiting their site (and the broader the
communityrentingorbuyingtheaordable
homes). This was the key lesson of Great
Kneighton, the outstanding success among the
schemes analysed where the mix of duplexes
and lateral apartments backing onto townhouses
meant that in a street where you might
normallyndonly100sqmhouses,therewere
apartments ranging from 75 to 130 sqm and
houses ranging from 100 to 275 sqm. Whenever
therewaslesscondencefromeitherthetop
or bottom of the market the sales momentum
helped the developer avoid pressure to value-
engineertoprotectprotability,aprocesswhich
usually falls hardest on the public realm.
The increase in the number of new homes
delivered on each site is only possible if their
design also appeals to more potential residents.
Increasing delivery relies as much on building
a variety of housing to suit a broad range of
new households as planning policy. “If you build
it, they will come’’ could be more accurately
rephrased as “If you build something for each of
them, more will come”.
15

2. Background
Delivering growth in Cambridge involved a recognition of the problem, evidence
about the consequences of different options, consultation to win hearts and
minds and cooperation between the local authorities to reach consensus. People
in the University of Cambridge, the local authorities and the business community
came together in the late 90s to debate the issues of growth and implement
change.8
2.1 Cambridge Futures
8 Platt S (2013) Backing for a big idea: Consensus building for strategic planning. Planning Advisory Service. DCLG
16

2. Background
The Cambridge story began in 1997 with Cambridge Futures. Concerned about the
constraints on growth, the University got together people from local government, planning,
development and business in a forum called Cambridge Futures. The Forum brought
togetherthemainplayerstotestoptionsincludingurbanextension,densicationand
dispersionandproducedtheevidencethatwasinuentialinchangingattitudestogrowth.
Planning of the city was constrained by the 1950 Holford and Wright Plan that proposed
a tight Green Belt, limited density, and tried to cap the size of the city to 100,000 people.9
In 1999 Cambridge Architectural Research surveyed public opinion on the options.10 The
least preferred planning option was the status quo and very few people agreed with the
proposition that Cambridge was full.Thiswashighlyinuentialinchangingcouncillors'
attitudes to development.
What was key was convincing people that doing nothing was the worst option; that if you
did nothing, things did not stay still, they got worse. There was still lots of nimbyism, so
people in the city wanted the development outside the city and people in the villages wanted
densicationofthecity.Butyouendedupwithamixofgrowthoptions–densicationofthe
city, new settlements on communication links and selective extension into the Green Belt.
And that’s what the 2003 County Structure Plan and subsequent Local Plans delivered.
What kicked o growth in Cambridge was public
acceptance. Prior to Cambridge Futures, as soon as
somebody mentioned large scale development there
was an outcry in the press of “hands o our Green Belt”.
Cambridge Futures paved the way for an ambitious sub-regional growth strategy that was
rstlypromotedthroughRegionalPlanningGuidanceforEastAnglia(2000),developedat
thestrategiclevelintheCambridgeshireStructurePlan(2003),andmadesite-specicinthe
2006 Cambridge City Local Plan and the Local Plans of surrounding District Councils.
Following the inclusion of Cambridgeshire in the Government’s Sustainable Communities
Plan in 2004, Cambridgeshire Horizons, funded by Central Government, was established as
the‘DeliveryVehicle’tosupporttheimplementationofthestrategy.Aswellassupporting
the local authorities, Cambridgeshire Horizons played a key role in promoting high quality
in design and sustainable development in the new neighbourhoods that had been allocated
in the Local Plans. The main focus of this work was the adoption of the Quality Charter for
Growth in 2008 and the establishment of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in 2010. These all
had the support of the Local Authorities, the University, developers and local businesses. In
2012 Cambridge City Council conducted a local plan review which continued this tradition of
considering radical strategic options for growth.11
The changes in Cambridge were happening in the context of the national picture. Design
reviewswererstundertakenbytheRoyalFineArtCommissionin1924,butDesignReview
Panels proliferated following the work of the Urban Task Force (1998) and when CABE was
established in 1999.12
9 Holford, W and Wright, H M (1950) Cambridge Planning Proposals. A report to the Town and Country Planning Committee of the Cambridgeshire County Council
10 Platt S (1999) Cambridge Futures – Survey report, Cambridge Architectural Research https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331132070_Cambridge_
Futures_1_Housing_Survey_report
11 Cambridge Local Plan - Towards 2031 Issues & Options Report, Cambridge City Council
12The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment was a successor to the Royal Fine Art Commission and created a model for design review that has
been replicated across regions and locally.
17

2. Background
13 Platt S, Fawcett W, De Carteret R (2004) Housing Futures – informed public opinion, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/public-views-development-options-south-east
The 2012 Local Plan extends Cambridge City into the green belt.
The Cambridge Futures exercise was repeated in 2004 in Aylesbury, Maidenhead and
MedwaywithsimilarresultstothosefoundinCambridgefiveyearsearlier.Ofthe1400
people surveyed 40% thought that their region must be allowed to grow. There was no
blanket opposition to land being used for development, nor was there a strong preference
fortheuseofbrownfieldovergreenfieldland.AsinCambridge,theoptionsfavouredwere
densification,urbanextensionandnewsettlements.Althoughmostpeoplewereopposed
tohigh-riseflatsbeingbuiltintheirarea,asubstantialproportion(47%)likedlow-rise
medium-densityhousing.Peoplethoughtthemainproblemwithhousingwasaffordability.
Theyacceptedthatnewhomeswereneededbutbelievedqualityandaffordabilitywere
moreimportant than quantity.13
18

2. Background
2.2 Leadership and political buy-in
In 2000 the Liberal Democrats gained control of Cambridge City Council and were
keen to push forward the ambitious sub-regional growth strategy that was emerging
through the Regional Planning Guidance. Nicola Harrison, Lead Member for the City
Council, argued that a failure to conduct an adequate review of the green belt strategy
in the nineties was stiing growth. She had a clear vision of a city going downhill and
was determined to deliver change. Shirley Saunders, Leader of South Cambridgeshire
District Council knew the business community and realised that planning was
important for growth. Shona Johnstone, Lead Member for the County, took the view
that they could either ght Government every step of the way, or accept the need
to grow, and say you must invest in us. Other members became more amenable to
change as they began to understand the issues and realised that the public was not as
opposed to expansion as they had supposed.
Leadership was critical in Cambridge. The planning
directors in the City and County, Peter Studdert and
Brian Smith, and the respective leading members,
Nichola Harrison and Shona Johnstone, were
instrumental in delivering change.
Personal relations were as important. Although Nichola Harrison, Shirley Saunders and
ShonaJohnstonewerefromdierentpoliticalpartieswithdierentconstituencyinterests,
they were willing and able to cooperate. Brian Smith, Director of Environment and Transport
at Cambridgeshire County Council, described how Peter Studdert, Director of Planning,
at Cambridge City Council, was keen that the County produce a new Structure Plan and
encouraged him to consider how to develop and grow.
Theseleadershadthebackingofanenthusiasticteam.Aprincipalplanningocerdescribed
how “ocers were ready to push for the next level of design quality and how there was real drive
from the team and a sense of responsibility that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity to shape
the future of Cambridge. We were enthused by Peter Studdert in the beginning and by the push
from Cambridge Horizons”.
There must be a political framework to deliver the step-change in growth and quality
shown by Cambridge. Buy-in for the growth strategy and the Structure Plan could not have
happened without Cambridge Horizons as the sub-regional delivery vehicle bringing the six
local authorities together and getting consensus for delivering high quality growth.
ThismeantthatStructurePlanproposalsabouttheGreenBelt,densicationandthe
location of a new settlement did not meet with the kind of opposition that other places have
experienced when proposing big changes.
19

2. Background
2.3 Evidence base
Cambridge Futures modelled seven options, including no change. The outcomes of each
were summarised in terms of things people could relate to such as job, trac, house
prices and impact on open space. Public participation was important. The ndings were
summarised in a highly accessible A3 sheet and illustrated in an animated video that
were given wide circulation in the local media. This was highly inuential.
Clear and transparent evidence was crucial in informing
decision-making and in convincing people about the
benets of growth and the downsides of doing nothing.
Professor Peter Carolin, Head of the Department of Architecture at the University and who
chaired Cambridge Futures, said at the time, “The public consultation exercise was a most
amazing piece of research, it proved to politicians that Joe Public is not as stupid as the tabloid
press would have us believe”. And Peter Studdert, then Director of Environment and Planning at
Cambridge City Council said, “The survey convinced people that if options were explained clearly
then the general public were much less intransigent about change than might have been supposed.”
Oneofthemainndingswasthattherewaslittlesupportforthe‘statusquo’.Theoptions
that won the least support were closest to the present planning policies of ‘minimum growth’
for the City of Cambridge and ‘necklace development’ of villages outside the Green Belt. And
people accepted that Cambridge could not be kept the same and that if nothing was done it
would only get worse. Most importantly there was clear support for growth, as long as it was
well managed.
The popular view was that people wanted a balance of development in Cambridge and in
the region. The survey suggested that a planning strategy which aimed for some growth in
Cambridgethroughdensicationandselectiveexpansionintothegreenbelt,togetherwith
growth outside Cambridge based on public transport links, would be most likely to meet the
aspirations of people in the region. And this is more or less what the Structure Plan delivered
four years later and, most relevantly, what we are experiencing now.
Timing is critical. The Cambridge Futures Forum
started before the Structure Plan process and was able
to inuence decisions.
With strong support from members, especially Nichola Harrison and Cambridge City Leader
Sian Reid, the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel was appointed in 2010 by Cambridge Horizons
to help raise the quality of new development. Quality Panel reports were valued highly by the
planning committee from the beginning.
20

2. Background
2.4 Quality charter and 4Cs
After extensive consultation and study tours in Europe, Nick Falk of Urbed devised
the Quality Charter published in 2008. It was inspired by pioneering work in the USA
and New Zealand and is organised around the 4Cs guiding principles: Community,
Connectivity, Climate and Character.14 The developer for Great Kneighton described the
4Cs as, "providing a framework you could work with and you knew what was being expected."
Community – Building a sense of community by providing a greater choice of
housing along with community facilities which assist active participation of
people in their neighbourhoods
Connectivity – Locating new developments where they can benet from high
connectivity to jobs and services and provision of sustainable infrastructure to
match the pace of the development
Climate – Tackling climate change through imaginative landscaping that treats
water as a friend not an enemy and through innovative approaches to energy,
transport and waste
Character - Creating places of character with distinctive neighbourhoods and
public realm that encouraged people to walk and cycle
The 4Cs overlap and Panel members are encouraged to go beyond the ‘C’ they supposedly
represent. Landscape which comes under character, overlaps and has relevance for climate,
connectivity and community.
An architect who was interviewed for the study thought the structure of the 4Cs is excellent,
and "having to think about projects in this way and make the presentation under the four topics is
a useful discipline. However, when you're in the middle of a detailed, complex planning application
it can be dicult to restructure your proposals".
The Quality Charter has a public facing role in articulating what is meant by high quality
growth and how it can be achieved in practice.
14 Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth (2008) Urbed
21

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
The Cambridgeshire Quality Panel (CQP) was formed in 2010 and has met 166 times and
reviewed over 90 housing schemes, as well as schools, health facilities, laboratories,
railway stations, and water treatment works.
The Panel’s remit is to scrutinise emerging master plans and design codes for major growth
sitesinCambridgeshire,andtoassistocersandmembersinupholdingandreinforcingthe
high-quality aspirations set out in the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth. The Panel
also supports and challenges the in-house design and planning processes of the authorities,
to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved.
ThePanelisthereasanexpertcriticalfriendtoboththeapplicantandtheplanningocer
teams and tries to set a collaborative, non-confrontational tone. It is there to listen to both
sides and to give an independent view. If you’re investing in a Panel, you want it to mean
something and have it taken seriously. In Cambridgeshire members are likely to take notice
of the Panel.
Itisaboutencouragingandinformingandnudgingandcangivedevelopersandocers,for
example the developer Countryside in Great Kneighton, the comfort that they are on the right
track. As one architect commented, “what was superb about the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
was the continuity they brought, people who know and understand Cambridge and are sensitive to
every aspect of what that means. They were well informed and are excellent peers. We were able to
start the conversation early and develop and deepen it as we went through the design process.”
Design review is a cog in a big machine and the success of housing in Cambridge is not
entirely due to the Quality Panel. Cambridge is fortunate in having a relatively strong well-
resourcedplanningandurbandesignteamofocersandsomedevelopershaveappointed
good architects.
The Quality Panel helps cut through the complexity,
focus on the strategic issues and facilitate delivery.
Panel members have the experience and gravitas to speak with authority to councillors,
developers and top designers. The presence of the Panel and the reputation it has built over
the past 14 years helps drive an expectation about quality. Quality has nothing to do with
style, however, or even notions of ‘beauty’.
As one architect commented, “The quality review Panel is good because it’s about discussing
design. That’s not about aesthetics or style; it’s about getting all 4 Cs right. More and more
architects lament the fact that we’re not discussing design enough with planning authorities.
Typically, in other places, the planners do not have a great deal of design or urban design
expertise. That’s not the case in Cambridge. Architects are able to use the design review Panel
as a leverage on their clients to say we cannot just do the norm here or we will not get consent.
That can be quite helpful with a challenging client, since the design review Panel can reinforce a
message, the designer has been giving the client”.
22

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
3.1 Impact of the Panel on the
quality of housing
The Quality Panel helped reinvent housing design by giving condence to planning
ocers and members. The Panel members convinced decision makers that super
energy ecient homes of 300sqm with ve private terraces are quite dierent from
the back-to-backs of the 19th Century. The city had a strong urban design team but the
support and input of the Quality Panel was essential in delivering the radical changes
proposed. The Panel helped give condence to members to approve new intensely
ecient low-rise development patterns.
The advantages of these designs were quickly proven and have spread through the
subregion. It also prompted the reform of planning regulations by the Government of
Ireland. The evidence base for reforms enacted in Dublin in January 2024 was known at
Ireland’s Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage as the ‘Cambridge model’.
New types of housing require new layouts and it became obvious that the Quality Panel
shouldbeinvolvedearlyatthemasterplanstage,otherwisePanelmembersandocers
could only try to make any mistakes less problematic - the lesson of Darwin Green. Taking
proposals to the Panel early has also been shown to speed things up because there is less
going ‘back and forth’. If a scheme addresses the charter, it earns support from the Panel
which, once written up as a Panel report to encourage the committee, speeds an application’s
progress through the committee stage through positive messaging to members.
Compared to a standard housebuilder scheme, the design quality is higher in Cambridge
housing. Many are working hard to raise the bar on quality. Developers have been pushed
to move away from apartments and there is more new-style housing which includes
townhouses and terraces.
"The Quality Panel gets applicants to think about
going beyond what they have to do because it’s a
condition. Sometimes developers think what do
planning officers know? When the Panel are saying
the same things, it absolutely helps."
Asoneseniorurbandesignocerdescribed,“Quality Panel sessions signicantly improved the
quality of all schemes. But some volume housebuilders still need their hands holding or pushing
in the right direction but that has been easier in Cambridge since the evident success of Accordia,
Abode and Eddington. That is where the Quality Panel helps because it is saying the same thing as
the planners, and it’s not just the ocer that is being awkward”.
The Panel helps raise the bar on quality. There might
be a few questions, but the applicant knows that if
they get a supportive letter, then they are pretty much
guaranteed a consent.
23

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
3.2 Formation of the Panel
Initially, in 2010 when it was formed, the Panel comprised just 12 members, three
of whom were local. Since then the Panel has been strengthened by the addition of
more landscape designers, transport engineers, and environmental management and
community development experts.
The Panel has evolved and Robin Nicholson, the Chair, has been able to push to get
good people on the Panel. Today the Panel has 20 members, seven of whom have local
connections. As one applicant described it, “The Panel are a good, knowledgeable bunch that
understand the locality. They are knowledgeable in their eld and are able to speak with authority
on transport, sustainability, landscape, architecture or community”. Yet individuals do not limit
themselves to talking about their area of expertise, or the ‘C’ they might be assigned, but
comment more broadly according to the key issues.
An architect said that “The Panel is well-structured. It is the only one that consistently has a
sustainability person and always has a strong voice on landscape. It’s the only one I know that has
anyone who deals with community. The calibre of the Panellists means that conversations are not
just about appearance. The Panel has lasted for a good decade plus and that’s a positive thing”.
The Quality Panel is multi-disciplinary and has a
majority of members from outside the area.
Typically,vePanelmembersattendeachschemepresentationandthereisconsiderable
eorttoensurethatthesamePanelmembersattendsubsequentreviewsofthesame
scheme.Intermsofcontinuity,itisgoodtohaveasmallerPanelthatischairedeectively.
TheQualityPanelisabigsupporttoplanningocers.ThePanelhelpsreinforcecrucial
issuesandsupportsplannerswhereresourcesareoftenstretchedaswellasoering
impartial solutions led by creativity, fresh eyes or experience. This can be crucial, for example
in the case of the Bovis scheme at Great Kneighton, which the Panel said was not very good
and the developer was asked to think again and appoint a new design team.
AplanningocerdetailedthevalueofthePanel’ssupport, “There was lots of engagement
and many review sessions, which added signicantly to quality, but there is a sense that at some
stage, all the applicants across all six schemes had to water down their ambition. In the real
world of construction when faced with delay or rising costs, occasioned by events outside local
control there is huge pressure to cut costs. That’s why an independent design review process is so
important in keeping the ame of ambition alive”.
The independence of review is important and members
place a lot of emphasis on what the Quality Panel say.
24

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
3.3 Where it ts in the planning process
The current planning system is not broken, it needs more resources. And the Quality
Panel can help smooth the planning process and speed decision-making.
The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service is a joint service providing the functions
of the statutory Local Planning Authority to both Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council. Both Councils committed to deliver the shared planning
service in 2015 with the objective of increasing the resilience and capability of the statutory
planningfunctioninthecityandcontinuingtoprovideacost-eectiveservicewhilst
recognising that the city’s future growth needed to be managed alongside that of its
neighbouring district.15
Timing of when to bring a scheme to the Panel is important. Design Review can add
greatest value at the early outline planning stage, although the die may have been cast at
the land purchase stage, which is invariably design-free. It must be early enough to make a
dierence.Ifaproposalhasgonetoofardownthelineitistrickytoundoanything.Onthe
other hand, the applicant has got to have enough to show that it is thought through.
It is essential that a Quality Panel is involved at the
master plan stage otherwise Panel members and
ocers can only try to make a bad scheme less bad.
Depending on their size and complexity, it is best to try bringing schemes to the Panel at least
twice, at concept stage and detailed design stage, so that you do not lose the early insight
before getting to the detail. One architect describes the timing issue as follows, “Planners
sometimes say, we’ve had four pre-apps (pre-application meetings or reports) and we think you
just need to tweak the elevations. Then you get to the Panel and it’s fundamentally awed and the
diagram is not right. So I think capturing it right at the beginning or early on is really important. If
an applicant does not want to do a full Panel, then a Chair’s review might be appropriate”.
Members value the Panel’s comments and put great faith and trust in the Panel’s reports
and recommendations. Applicants realise that the planners listen to what the review Panel
says. As one developer said, “ Everybody knows you cannot get away with building rubbish
in Cambridge. Whether it’s the presence of the Quality Panel or more likely a combination of
many moving parts is a question. But the very existence of the Panel means you’ve got to think
about quality. There is a danger, however, that the Panel becomes a tick box, that ocers use it
to manage members, and developers feel like it’s just another hurdle. When you look at what’s
built on the ground in Cambridge, clearly the Panel is part of that process, so something must be
working and the Panel is part of that collective success”.
Taking proposals to the Panel actually helps speed
things up because the application is not having to go
back and forth.
15 Shared planning service budget and programme budget
https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s48148/PTScrutinyCommitteeSharedPlanningServicereport14Oct_v2.pdf
25

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
If a scheme supports the charter and has good support from the Panel when it is written
up, it goes through the committee process quickly. Going to the Panel can therefore speed
things up and it is worth getting it right at pre-app; then, when it is submitted, it has been
improved by informed discussions.
ThePanelalsohasanimportantandincreasingwidernon-site-specicroleinseekingto
inuencethedecisionmakerswhosetpolicy,forexamplehighwayengineering,andcode
setting,thatcanstiegooddesign.
3.4 Relations with ocers
and members
Ocers know that the Panel is there to support them in their reservations or concerns
about a scheme. And the Panel raises the game of case ocers who want to turn up at
the Quality Panel presenting their top game. As a planning ocer said, "The Panel isn't
the only thing. You need a well-resourced planning system, but it was certainly a part of it.
When you've got the Quality Panel saying the same things, it absolutely helps".
It would be horrendous without the Panel, and ocers
would be tearing their hair out, because the Panel gives
them a lot of help.
SkilfulcaseocersusetheirintroductiontobriefthePanel.Youcannevercovereverything,
however, and the skill is in using the Panel as a way of breaking through to the issues where
theocerisjarringagainstthedeveloper.
TheQualityPanelhadausefulinuence,forexample,onDarwinGreeninbackingupwhat
ocerssaidtotheapplicants,particularlyaboutsustainability.ThePanelhadapositive
impact on Great Kneighton in supporting the radical new layouts and meetings are planned
with the County’s Highway engineers to help Homes England improve Northstowe.
The Panel helps maintain a focus on key strategic issues. Applicants often present the Panel
with loads of images and little thought. There’s no explanation of the process of coming to
the proposed solution, nor an argument for why this is the right approach to the place. As
aplanningocerforSouthCambridgeshireDCsaid, “Once the various plans are produced at
the outline stage, no one really sees them and, except for the illustrative master plan, there is little
reference to any of these approved plans and ocers get side-tracked into the detail rather than
an understanding of the strategy”.Whenocerscometoreservemattersapplicationsvery
few have any background knowledge of the master plan and the outline, or the landscape
strategy. They approach an application on a site-by-site basis, rather than understanding
thecontext.ThePanelprovidesthatbiggervisionofhowtheschemetsintothebroader
picture. How does it connect with the adjacent parcels? What is the landscape response in
relation to adjacent greenways?
Asanotherocerputit,“It’s a question of clarity and clear summing up from the chair. It’s
crucial for the minute because that’s the document that that encapsulates what’s been said. You’re
not giving them the solution. You’re not updating the drawing for them. You’re giving them a steer
to make it better”.
26

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
3.5 Relations with applicants -
developers and design teams
The consensus is that rather than causing delay, taking a scheme to the Panel speeds
things up and developers know that the Panel can be quite strong on certain things.
For the officer to be able to say we can sit here and argue, but realistically the Panel
are going to support this, can cut through what might be an impasse and a costly
delay.
Developers have nowhere to hide in presenting
to the Panel and know that they have to pass the
Cambridgeshire Quality Panel gateway. Councillors,
who make the nal decision, give considerable weight
to the views of the Quality Panel.
Settingointherightdirectionoftenmeansgettingtherightarchitectsinvolved.That’swhy
somermsscorebecausetheyhavetherightattitude.Legacy-consciousdeveloperswith
good architects can understand what the Panel is saying.
The message from Cambridge, beginning with Peter Studdert in 2003 with the regional
government site that became the Accordia development, is that applicants need architects
withsignicantexperiencedesigningresidentialschemes.Developersalerttothese
expectations appoint specialist consultants who work with the Panel constructively to
improve outcomes. But others, notably the less progressive volume builders, have struggled
because the Panel will challenge their adherence to development patterns that ignore the
4Cs. It is notable that a couple of majors no longer buy sites where the Quality Panel has
any oversight, and that conversely this has led to an increase in opportunities for those
developers comfortable with meeting the Panel’s aspirations for the region.
An architect who had worked on two of the schemes said that the ethos of the Panel is
collaborative and they’d always enjoyed that, and that more eyes on a scheme was helpful.
“Getting the Panel’s report within a week or two is important, because if there were things that
could inuence the scheme, they had to happen in a timely manner.”
For the developer, however, it can feel like a hurdle to get over. The developer for Ely North
suggested, “If there was a context chat beforehand, particularly about the economics of the
scheme, it would feel more collaborative and less confrontational and might add value”.
The planners’ view is that “Most developers approach housing schemes as suburban parcels with
a standard type of development. There are some who collectively need to come on a journey if we’re
going to improve quality”. The Panel are good at always reminding everyone that it is a town
or an urban quarter we’re building. So what is an appropriate response, rather than the usual
oerofmostdeveloperswhoareusedtobuildingestatesorsmall-scaledevelopments.
TheocerscanonlyrecommendtheapplicantbringstheirschemeforreviewandPanel’s
views are advisory.
27

4. Lessons from Cambridge
To deliver the quality of housing we are seeing in Cambridge you have to have people
who are committed to designing large complex housing schemes – “the Jedi of the
housing world”. These are the people you need when you’re doing 500 to 800 unit
housing developments. But housebuilders are naturally reluctant to try something
new and their estate agents will price against it.
It is seriously dicult to develop good large settlements
with so many dierent parties pulling and pushing
within their own red lines, and then you have Covid and
a recession to slow down the process.
4.1 Design codes and master plans
Design codes are often prescriptive on some things, and remarkably non-prescriptive
on others and it would probably be better if “a lighter touch document described
general principals” rather than trying to be overly prescriptive.
Thebestdesigncodesareexibleenoughtoallowchanges.InGreatKneighton,for
example, the developers were able to challenge the design code and the local authority
acknowledged that changes might be better. The code for outside the primary school
indicated a road and a recycling bin point. This did not make sense, and they took this out
and built a park instead. The code also envisaged crossing a series of streets to get to the
community building. Instead they designed a garden square to get to the Clay Farm Centre.
Initially developers were nervous about the delay design codes could have on bringing
forward a site. So the urban design team in the City Council produced design coding
for major sites that described what the developers needed to achieve with an outline
application, and the areas it should cover.
Codetestinghasbeenatickboxexercise,deningthelowestdenominatorratherthan
embodying ambition or applying lessons learned elsewhere. Coding has generally failed to
enforce key aspects of schemes to deal with health and well-being, community development,
or sustainability. And rarely, has it been able to relax things in order to make exceptions for
something better.
Design codes should be no longer than 100 pages
and have a clause which says if betterment can be
demonstrated then the code can change.
28

4. Lessons from Cambridge
In Northstowe the 250-page design code failed to determine what was mandatory. In
Eddington rigid design codes and parameter plans, which are all about organising things to
be the same, have made it tough for designers. In the light of build-out densities on Phase 1,
the University intends to bring forward a new master plan for additional density and repeat
conversations with the planners about quality and density.
Producing a good master plan is a highly specialised task. All the issues the 4Cs encapsulate
are interlinked and master planning must be climate/biodiversity led by ‘experts. Master
planningsuersfromeverythinggettingsiloedandthedefaultpositionisaperimeterblock,
with back-to-back gardens. Standard outline application master plans are not granular
enough and cannot support new ways of thinking. Nor do master plans currently deal with
whichbitsaretobeadoptedandwhichbitsnot.Youmusthaveanin-depthknowledgeof
urbanism and architecture to devise a meaningful master plan.
Master plans need an architect who knows how to
design houses.
The character of an area will largely be determined by the streets that houses address.
Streets do not work in part because the plots are divided down the centre of the road and
the Panel has continued to ask that plots be separated down back fences rather than down
roadssinceitwasrstsuggestedattheTrumpingtonMeadowsRiversidereviewin2016.
4.2 Sustainability and climate change
Planning ocers are acutely aware that planning policies in relation to climate change
are out of date, so they are always pushing developers to go further. For example, they
have had issues trying to get developers to move away from single aspect dwellings
and the Quality Panel have been helpful in backing up ocers. Ocers and Panel
members have also been pushing on measuring embodied and life-time carbon.
The response to climate has rarely been central to
submissions to the Panel. It’s the bigger picture, with
well researched land-use planning, that would begin to
address climate resilience properly.
Adaptation,thatallowsfordierentwaysoflivingandworking,isakeyissueinnewhomes.
Variationsinlifestyleandworkingwereturbochargedbythepandemicbuttherecent
schemeshavemadelittleornoreferencetothesechanges.Designingloftiergroundoors
to allow for adaptation to commercial or retail uses is one of the ways of providing for
adaptation that has been followed in Eddington.
All the schemes claim to be sustainable and at least Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 or
516 or Net Zero ready. But, in terms of really addressing the challenges of climate change in
the driest part of the UK, housing in Cambridge still has a long way to go.
16 The Code for Sustainable Homes is an environmental assessment method for rating and certifying the performance of new homes in United Kingdom.
Introduced in 2007, it is a national standard for use in the design and construction of new homes with a view to encouraging continuous improvement in
sustainable home building. In 2015 the Government in England withdrew it, consolidating it into Building Regulations.
29

4. Lessons from Cambridge
The construction industry is only now anticipating how the world is going electric. We knew
electric cars were coming, and electric heating, but we’ve still not reacted appropriately in
housing design. So it is not clear how much of the new housing will sit in the real world.
Isitgoingtobeadaptabletoanetzerofuture?DoalltheroofscapessupportPV?Canwe
theatpumpsinhousessomeofwhicharestillprovidedwithagasboiler?We’llbeforever
trying to adapt.
We need to build in resilience to new housing, but that’s
not really been thought through. Most applicants just talk
about the scheme’s sustainability methodologies – ‘fabric
rst’, photovoltaics, shading and heat pumps and the
rest. But the Panel rarely sees what that means in reality.
As elsewhere in the UK, we know electricity supply is going to be a major constraint
becausewewillneedasignicantamountofelectricalloading,yetthereislittleorno
localgenerationapartfromphotovoltaics(PV)ontheatroofsinEddingtonandonsome
pitched roofs elsewhere. There is no local wind power, even on the potentially windy sites in
Northstowe and North Ely. The chairman of Hopkins does not like photovoltaics so there are
no solar panels in the North Ely scheme.
There is a concern about overheating worsened by extensive hard landscaping. The Panel has
regularly voiced its concerns and suggests more tree planting and rain gardens to ameliorate
the impact of hot summers. Opening windows onto something green and cool, rather than
somethinghotandhard,hasmultiplebenets,especiallyinawarmingclimate.
In Darwin Green a wide expanse of paving and a lack of trees may lead to overheating in the square.
30

4. Lessons from Cambridge
In a big storm on an open landscape like Cambridgeshire you need shelter to mitigate wind
andashoods.
In Darwin Green excessive unprotected glazing with south and west orientations will lead
to overheating and may need shading devices. Barratts, like other housebuilders, have not
yet gone all electric but have been attempting to make their developments future proof.
Providingspaceheatingsystemswithunder-oorheatingisonlypartoftheissue.Planning
the location of heat pumps and the need for higher standards of insulation and airtightness
are also critical issues.
Eddingtoniswellbuiltwithhighceilingsandbigwindows.Thereareground-oorhome-
working spaces that activate frontages allowing residents to showcase their creativity. In
Knights Park homes have cross-ventilation and people can open their windows and use their
balconies.IntheRubiconats,however,acousticlouvreshadtobeaddedtocutdownnoise
fromtheM11.Theirretrotcauseddelayanddesignissuesintegratingthemintofacades.
Post occupancy evaluation is essential and should be mandatory.17
4.3 Highways and car-parking
On all the schemes in Cambridge highway engineering dominates street design and
there is generally too much hard landscaping. The public realm consists of oversized
carriageways that are too wide with too little planting. Yet it is dicult or impossible
to get sustainable drainage and shared surfaces adopted, which will lead to long-term
maintenance issues.
Over-engineered highway design is an issue across all
schemes. The design of roundabouts, visibility splays,
and the overprovision of segregated cycle routes on
streets lead to a lack of enclosure and intimacy.
Whilst some neighbourhoods have avenues and trees, the dominance of hard paving,
cycle lanes on both sides, turning radii, and the general highway approach make for
unsatisfactory places.
The focus of highway engineering has been on vehicle movement in residential streets,
which has resulted in places that are dominated by motor vehicles. Manual for Streets
(2007)18 focuses on the place function of residential streets, giving clear guidance on how
to achieve well-designed streets and spaces. It links planning policy and residential street
designandasksprofessionalstothinkdierentlyabouttheirroleincreatingsuccessful
neighbourhoods. It places particular emphasis on the importance of collaborative working
and coordinated decision-making, as well as on the value of strong leadership and a clear
vision of design quality at the local level.
17 Post occupancy evaluation (POE) is the process of obtaining feedback on a building’s performance in use after it has been built and occupied. It’s
recommendations are based on all stakeholder groups’ experiences of the buildings’ eects on productivity and wellbeing.
18 Manual for Streets (2007) Department of Trade
31

4. Lessons from Cambridge
In Northstowe the roads are too wide, there is no tree strategy and cycleways have been commandeered by
parked cars
The aim is to create neighbourhoods where buildings,
streets and spaces combine to create locally distinct
places that make a positive contribution to the life of
local communities.
A key objective of PPS319wastoensurelandisusedecientlysothespacetakenoverby
parking needs to be minimised. Managing cars creates problems for designers of higher
densityhousing.Yetestateagentacceptedwisdomaboutcarparkingcontinuestodominate
thinking about how we manage parking.
“If you integrate car parking in the house types you end up with inactive facades. And if you
put in solid garage doors people ll them up and park the car out on the street. That was the
reason for the open roller shutter doors in Great Kneighton, which also has some on-street
parking bays. But there is not anywhere in the public realm to spill over and park and that
was quite carefully designed.”
With car ownership so high in Cambridge it will require a step change in how private
transport is seen and the role of bicycles and public transport will be critical. In Eddington,
however, the demand for parking was over-estimated and only 70 parking permits have
been let for 700 housing units. One of the two underground carparks is relatively empty and
the other never opened. Apart from in Eddington, there is little evidence of a move away
from cars and all the developments feels somewhat car dominated.
With higher density living, space for car parking is
problematic and we need local authorities to have a
pragmatic approach to managing cars, to minimise
space for parking and to prioritise walking and cycling.
14 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) 2006; Revision 2024 https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Policy_documents/PPS3.pdf
32

4. Lessons from Cambridge
4.4 Landscape and spaces
between buildings
Landscape is a topic that cuts across and is relevant to all the 4Cs. In all the schemes,
with the exceptions of parts of Great Kneighton and Eddington, the key problem is the
dominance of hard paving and a lack of adequate space for blue/green infrastructure.
Inter-disciplinary working between master planner and landscape designer is
needed to deliver a better understanding of the natural systems that are being
altered by the development.
Cambridgeshire is one of the most nature-depleted counties in the UK.20 To address this
decit,theCambridgeNatureNetworkaimsto‘doublenature’acrossthecountyandnature-
based solutions need to be applied within and around all new developments. Biodiversity
atdierentlevelsintheecosystemworks“by providing the spares, repairs and player
substitutions”.Poorbiodiversitymeanstheremaybeinsucient“spares or repairs” available,
andacompromisedsystemaectsourabilitytomitigatetheeectsofclimatechangeand
to create a healthy living place.
Urban landscapes, the spaces between buildings,
including the roads, should produce an array of
benecial outcomes for people. But landscaping is
frequently seen as urban decorating rather than
investment in infrastructure that delivers carbon
saving, climate change adaptation, biodiversity gain
and health benets for many years to come.
There needs to be a focus on de-paving, and waterwise design that combines drainage,
fosters resilient vegetation and provides local summer cooling. It is the little things that
count. Is the street planting in shared surface areas going to survive? Has thought been
giventothewaterrun-oandtheintegrationofthephases?Ifwewantthevegetationin
urban areas to succeed in increasingly stressed conditions, soil is the foundation. Trees
do not grow well in compacted sealed surfaces, but developers plant trees in small pits,
whereas trees can be also planted in rain gardens, or on the sides of swales as part of the
SustainableUrbanDrainageSystem(SuDS).Theonlyschemethatwasdoingthiseectively
was Eddington.
If you are lifting densities the public realm has to be
about people.
“It’s all about how your housing design is going to be operating into the future and whether the
bin stores will be the most disgusting thing in the area or whether you’re going to have problems
because your garden gets no sunshine and the lawn is dead for the third time. There are some
architects who understand this and just do it properly.”
20 The State of Nature in Cambridgeshire. (2021) Natural Cambridge – putting nature at the heart. https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2022/02/State-of-nature-camb-report-nov21_v2.pdf
33

4. Lessons from Cambridge
Applicants should provide percentage areas of hard and soft landscaping and building
footprints. Outline planning submissions should be accompanied by illustrative layouts,
showing how the houses will work on the streets shown. Long site sections are essential to
show the scale and topography, and street sections are necessary to show root ball provision
and underground services.
One of the issues in moving from private gardens and minimal public realm is that someone
must maintain the sustainable urban drainage. New types of semi-public landscaping and
greenways between the houses require regular maintenance, something the local authority
maynotbepreparedornanciallyresourcedtoundertake.Themaintenancecostwillbe
passed on to residents. Typical service charges range from £1200 per annum in Darwin
Green to £2090 per annum in Eddington. Apart from children’s areas and allotments, these
spacesaredicultforresidentsto‘takeownership’ofandseemunder-used.Typically,if
thesespacesaretobewell-maintained,therewillbeasignicanton-goingservicecharge.
It has not been easy for designers and developers to get these new types of landscape
accepted.Onearchitectdescribedhowtheyhadtogotothehighwaysdepartment,there
department and utilities to negotiate and it was like doing battle. So parts of Abode and
otherschemesareunadopted.Asthearchitectfortheschemecommented,“You’vegotto
start talking about management into the future, and these are all conversations that the
average housebuilder really does not want to have”.
There is an over-reliance on conventional high embodied carbon sub-surface drainage.
In Northstowe, Darwin Green and North Ely, streets have little or no vegetation so fail to
mitigate heat waves or heavy rain events that are becoming more frequent with climate
change.Vastareasarepresentedforheatabsorption,andrunoandrelyonconventional
sub-surfacedrainage.Insummer,hotsurfacesheattherainwaterrunningothem,which
withpointloadingofpollutants,adverselyaectswaterqualityinpondsandrivers.
The lakes at Brook Leys store the rainwater collected from across Eddington before it is treated and pumped
back to homes for use in toilets. The lakes provide a wildfowl habitat.
34

4. Lessons from Cambridge
A better approach is to retain water on the surface, feeding into rills, channels, ditches/
swales, with rain gardens providing character, community focus and climate change
adaptation in the heart of the development. Unlike the edge of settlement balancing pond
model, which generally wastes space in projects around Cambridge and elsewhere, these
examples have a lake/pond/running stream and are all people-oriented biophilic places.
Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS) in Knights Park, Eddington, designed by Townsend
Landscape Architects
4.5 Community
We cannot create communities that guarantee cohesion and social inclusion, but
well-designed and well-built schemes can encourage social interaction and reduce
social conict, whilst poorly thought through schemes can foster social tension and
aggravate strife.
Newhousingschemesattractavarietyofdierentpeople–youngfamilieswantingabetter
place for their children; people moving to the area with their work and needing somewhere
convenient;andelderlywantingtodown-size.Butallare‘pioneers’intherstfewyearsand
they need places to meet.
35

4. Lessons from Cambridge
New communities need a range of community facilities
within walking distance: places to meet other people,
stimulating places for young children to play and places
for teenagers to congregate.
A new community needs time to get established. In Darwin Green the plans for the local
centre by Makower Architects looked good, but the centre is still a bare plot and may be a
long-time coming and the unwelcoming library and community centre will struggle to work.
In Northstowe a vibrant community has developed with the early delivery of the primary
school, part of which initially was being used as a community centre. The community
development team are now in a temporary ‘Cabin’ community centre while the permanent
building is constructed. There are numerous clubs and a Town Council; but do they engage
the residents of the neighbouring villages of Longstanton and Oakington? Many children cycle
to school and there are excellent play facilities, but as yet no shops and few other facilities.
In Eddington the main square is getting better with a hair-dressing bar with quiz nights, a
new restaurant in the hotel, Dulcedo Social café, and a beer festival. There are, however,
fewer children, particularly compared to social housing and there is an opportunity to look at
the data and question, for example, whether another new school is unnecessary at this stage.
Knitting circle inside the Clay Farm Centre, Great Kneighton.
36

4. Lessons from Cambridge
4.6 Phasing, timing and delivering
community infrastructure
Another big issue is that large housing schemes take an inordinately long time
to deliver. This means that there are not enough people to support a full range
of amenities and services in the rst ve to ten years. Schools, health and sports
facilities are usually triggered by the number of homes completed, while shops, cafes,
hairdressers and all the other services are subject to market forces.
Large schemes take a long time to settle down,
connect to neighbours and generate a sense of
place and community.
Phasing is crucial; Gallagher did not deliver the social facilities for Northstowe Phase 1
upfront when they were needed. The private sector is not normally good at meanwhile
uses21 but it can be done with temporary facilities. For example Argent was brilliant at Kings
Cross with the Skip Garden and in Alconbury the provision of the temporary Club as the
heart of the community by Urban & Civic was exemplary.
Great Kneighton provided a school, health/community centre, and a supermarket. Similarly at
Eddington, a school, community centre and supermarket were provided up front. In contrast
the exceptionally long gestation of Darwin Green, North Ely and Northstowe, aggravated by
thenancialcrisisandCovid,hascreatedsignicantproblemsinservicedelivery.
In Marleigh the Hanger community centre was meant to be a hub with a library and one-to-
one rooms and a health centre. Most of the space is taken up by with a badminton court and
inadequate storage for tables and chairs.
The failure to deliver the Waitrose supermarket in the centre of Darwin Green is particularly
unfortunate since that was central to the local community’s acceptance of the development.
There is no school yet, nor the central park. The Darwin Green community centre and library
have been built, although they are disappointing as buildings. They appear to be underused
possibly because of the lack of residents.
Theanswerwouldseemtobetoconsiderdierentlevelsofprovisionatdierentstages
of development and provide temporary accommodation where necessary, as they did in
Northstowe,usingspacerstintheprimaryschoolandtheninthesecondaryschoolfor
community services.
21 Meanwhile Uses occupy vacant or underutilised premises, sites or spaces on a temporary basis.
37

4. Lessons from Cambridge
4.7 Ambition of the applicant
The client’s aspiration, how they’re going to deliver the scheme and the ability of
the design team they appoint are obviously fundamental to the quality of what is
delivered. The Panel touch on this and raise it occasionally, but it is not something
either planning ocers or the Quality Panel have much control over.
When a developer has a reputation to uphold, they listen.
The quality of what is delivered also depends on the experience of the planning team,
especially if there is a shared undertaking to achieve high quality with the developer and a
constructivedialoguebetweenocers,thedeveloperandthedesignteam.
Architects generally want more freedom and they know how to exercise that freedom to
get a high-quality outcome. The Quality Panel is a useful reinforcement but it does not
necessarily change the outcome where you have people passionate about doing something
good. Nevertheless, the Panel’s comments can help the architect argue with developers
about the virtue of better quality. But some developers do not want to listen.
Homes on Marleigh Avenue designed by Pollard Thomas Edwards architects, developed by Hill Homes
and Marshall
38

5. Relevance for other places
You need the kind of ‘machinery’ that Cambridge developed over 15 years to grease the
wheels – the political buy-in, winning hearts and minds, a quality charter, consistency
of Quality Panel membership, strong chairing, good administration, and a well-
resourced planning and urban design team. A lot of places struggle to take a long-term
view and explore options, rather than just focus on getting a local plan adopted. The
problem is that in some parts of England, housing has become weaponised politically.
Whether the Cambridge experience is replicable
depends on whether people are willing to work together,
to nd leaders, develop the ambition, produce the
evidence and win over hearts and minds to the big idea.
It is possible to do it more quickly. It needs the planning authority and members to have a
grasp of the bigger picture, then results can be evident in one or two years.
The key ingredients in Cambridge were:
1. an agreed strategic vision amongst the key players and the importance of
having a coherent structure of strategic planning across a sub-region
2. a cross-sector think tank such as Cambridge Futures which works alongside
the statutory authorities
3. local leadership, both from political leaders and from planning directors
4. an evidence base for testing and evaluating dierent strategic options
for growth
5. a dedicated delivery team such as Cambridgeshire Horizons that can support
local authorities in implementing their growth strategy.
Major housing schemes depend on a broad agreement that the town/city/region needs to
grow. Growth must be based on jobs and there needs to be adequate water, electricity and
publictransport.Providingthedevelopmenthasthesupportofmembers,planningocers
are able to leverage the views of quality panels to insist on higher quality.
39

5. Relevance for other places
5.1 Relevance of the quality charter,
4Cs and the Quality Panel
The quality charter and 4Cs means that quality is lifted before planning application
submission, by demanding that developers and designers respond to the wider issues
and rise to the challenges and opportunities of their sites.
The quality charter is easy to use, understandable and the 4Cs are a good way of structuring
presentations and talking about development that would be relevant to other places. The
way in which the Panel has interpreted the 4Cs helps the conversation and discussion. It is
nottooprescriptiveanddiscussionisfreeowing.The4Csareplanningpolicyneutral,and
donotattachthemselvesspecicallytoCambridgelocalplanpolicy.
The Quality Charter and the Panel are absolutely
applicable elsewhere. The key lessons are a good strong
chair and consistency.
Design review has become more important because the resources in local authorities are
much reduced and impoverished. A Quality Panel would be of value to those authorities that
are not as well-resourced and need some additional guidance.
Imposingsignicantqualityconstraintsandanationwidepolicyofdesignreviewhasa
material cost, however, and not everyone is the University of Cambridge and developers
have commercial motivations and constraints. Planners and Panels need to be alive to these
constraints and foster a spirit of cooperation, otherwise issues in the planning system will
mean that new housing does not get delivered.
Abode designed by Proctor and Matthews Architects and developed by Countryside Homes.
40

5. Relevance for other places
5.2 Relevance of new housing
typologies
Cambridge quality could be rolled out more widely since it is an inherent part of
placemaking and good design. Cambridge is dierent in terms of value commanded
for new homes, but that should not be a prerequisite for high quality design; it is about
getting the basics right.
There is a higher level of acceptance of development in Cambridge and less opposition than
in other places. Somebody’s taken the overview, and you’re living in a place that has got a
future.
There’s nothing to stop good new typologies
being developed elsewhere, if they are successful,
at a higher density, and deliver value from the
quality and eciencies. But it requires a leap of
faith from developers.
InDublin,aschemewhichiseectivelyGreatKneighton‘light’withouttheexpensive
brickwork detailing and the expenditure on the public realm was designed by Proctor
Matthews for Glenbeigh who sold it on to the Land Development Agency who are going to
use it to pilot its First Homes initiative.
Proctor & Matthews’ new cluster neighbourhood at Wilkinsons Brook Dublin. Photographer © Tim Crocker
41

5. Relevance for other places
One of the design principles in Cambridge has been to reduce areas of garden and to
provide private spaces in terraces and balconies. The idea of three and four-bedroom houses
with no gardens was breaking new ground. Estate agents advised Countryside on Abode
thatthey’dbethelasthomestosell,andofcoursetheyweretherst.
Higher density urban living places an emphasis on the provision of open space.22 Access
togoodqualityoutdoorspacecantakemanydierentformsincourtyards,balconies,and
roof terraces. From the design point of view, it demands a greater focus on the relationships
between homes and the need to ensure that all private amenity spaces are private and
working really hard to provide pleasure. “In these days of reduced fees and cost constraints you
can see why architects and developers just revert to type because it’s easier.”
There is a danger if one forces a design point on a team
that does not have the in-house skill to execute and
deliver the level of detail it can go wrong. A legacy-
conscious developer knows they need a good architect
and need to liaise with the design team constantly to
make sure detailing is right.
Getting the Panel’s message across to volume housebuilders who need to see the value, that
itmakeslifeeasierandgetstheapplicationapprovedisessential.Volumehousebuildersare
oftenreluctanttocomebacktothePanelandocersmusttryhardtopersuadethem.
Elements of Trumpington Meadows, where housebuilders took their standard house types
and elevated them with the help of Allies & Morrison Architects, is instructive. Accordia,
Great Kneighton, and Eddington are quite urban and successful, but not necessarily
transferable everywhere.
Consort Avenue, Trumpington Meadows, designed by Allies and Morrison, developed and built by Barratt
Eastern Counties. Photographer © Nick Guttridge
22 The quantum of open space on new developments is crucial and is measured by oor area ratio (the built oor area divided by the parcel area).
42

5. Relevance for other places
5.3 Overcoming barriers
Cambridge has high land values. There are higher margins and less debate about
quality and viability. It is dierent in other parts of the country.
To apply lessons from Cambridge elsewhere means resolving a few contradictions.
1. There is a discrepancy between aspirations and delivery, between
the intentions expressed at the start of the process and what is built.
Development takes a long time; situations change and events intervene.
2. Other places are not like Cambridge, which is experiencing dynamic growth
and is well resourced. Yet most people feel that their town of city is special
and want the best.
3. The planning process can be long-winded. Historically, all governments
would like to streamline and speed up the process and build more homes.
But people are naturally cautious of change, and, in a democracy, they need
to be consulted and persuaded of the benets of development.
These are not insoluble, but they need to be addressed intelligently if the lessons from
Cambridge are to be successfully applied elsewhere. A forum of interested parties to set
the agenda and explore options, a strategic plan, a well-resourced planning and urban
design team, the political buy-in of councillors and winning over the informed opinion of
the general public are all essential pre-requisites of a Quality Charter and Quality Panel like
those in Cambridge. The Cambridge Futures exercise was repeated in Aylesbury, Medway
andMaidenheadwithasimilarpatternofacceptanceofdensication,sensitiveexpansion
into the greenbelt and new settlements along communication links.23 This development mix
might usefully be applied elsewhere.
Government needs to identify other places where
there is a potential for a similar kind of consensus.
Potential for growth means there will have to be jobs,
connectivity, water and grid connection.
AtthemomenttheplanningprocessacrosstheUKissitespecic.Eachsitepitsitsmerits
against others for selection in the local plan, which is the opposite of what happened in
Cambridge where there was a holistic overview of what was right for the region.
23 Platt, S, Fawcett, W and de Carteret, R (2004) Public Views of Development Options in the Southeast, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/public-views-development-options-south-east
43

5. Relevance for other places
Cambridgeshire has been at the forefront of challenging legacy-conscious developers and
architects, to deliver the best. Other places share the ambition, but for various reasons,
qualityandthevisiongetsstied.Thebigquestionofhowtogetthevolumehousebuilders
to deliver better quality because that’s the industry that is building in every corner of the UK.
The lessons from Cambridge could work elsewhere
– resourcing, skilled ocers, particularly, urban
designers who understand the space between planning
and architecture to work with the Quality Panel and
follow up on its recommendations.
Darwin Green designed by Tate Hindle Architects, developer Barratt/David Wilson Homes
44

Conclusions
Lessons from the housing schemes
• Master planning is a specialised skilled activity and many design teams seem incapable
of doing it well.
• Planning is not the problem, rather highways, water and grid connections are.
• Most local authorities lack planning and urban design resources.
• There need to be fewer, clearer enforceable rules, particularly for bio-diversity net gain
and net zero.
• Housebuilders are increasingly in a hurry but do not help themselves by cutting corners.
• New building regulations will ensure a full design team is appointed who design the
whole scheme up front so will take longer and cost more to get to site but the houses will
be built better.
• Large schemes take a long time to settle down, connect to neighbours and generate a
sense of place and community.
• The streets do not work in part because the plots are divided down the centre of the
road. It would be better to divide them mid-block.
• Electricity and water are going to be major constraints.
Lessons for planning and design review
• Design Review must be collaborative and not confrontational.
• Design Review Panels must be multi-disciplinary.
• Design Review can add greatest value at the early outline planning stage.
• The 4 Cs overlap and the members should be allowed to go beyond their ‘C’.
• It is essential that the Panel is involved at the master plan stage otherwise they can only
try to make a bad scheme less bad.
• ItisimportantforplanningocersinlocalauthoritiestobriefthePanelbeforethe
review and for the Panel to debrief to the planners afterwards.
• Outline planning submissions must be accompanied by illustrative layouts to show that
the houses will work on the streets shown.
• Long site sections are important to show the scale and the topography and % areas of
hard, soft and building footprints are essential.
• Street sections, including below surface to show root ball provision and underground
services with buildings, are essential.
The lessons from Cambridge can work elsewhere, but will need resourcing with skilled
planningocers,particularly,urbandesignerswhounderstandthespacebetweenplanning
and architecture and how to work with a Quality Panel to follow up on its recommendations.
Urban extensions and new towns require:
1. Good locations with jobs, public transport, water and electricity supply
2. A shared ambition to grow the local economy with local leadership, a vision and a public
engagement to get buy-in
3. A well-resourced planning team with supportive members
4. A simple Quality Charter, which could be based on the 4Cs
5. A multi-disciplinary Quality Panel to assist the planning process and raise ambitions.
45

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Market housing at Knight’s Park, Eddington, designed by Pollard Thomas Edwards
46

Appendix:
The Six Schemes
47

1. Darwin Green
1,780 homes
17% built to date
Net density 48dph
 40%aordable
30% public open space
48

Appendix: The Six Schemes
There is much to admire about Darwin Green. It has good access to the city centre
and the A14. It is tried to tackle density and get away from the standard volume
housebuilder model. There are some interesting housing typologies including
walk-up ats and L-shaped congurations with double or even triple aspects.
It is genuinely mixed with a variety of housing types and sizes catering for a wide
section of society and has good access to green eld open spaces and potentially
makes for a good neighbourhood.
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Lack of integration with the
city; concern about the long
development time
Neither supermarket nor school
had been built; community centre
and library are on the ground
oorbutopenontoahugebut
dismal paved square
Connectivity Clear cycle and pedestrian
network; concern about bus plans
Bus gate gone, so no bus through
service
Character Too many character areas; more
aspiration needed.
No landscape strategy, excessive
hard surfaces and treeless square
Climate Only BREEAM very good. Considerable areas of unprotected
glazing will lead to overheating
The local authority worked hard to raise the bar on quality and the Panel pushed Barratts
to move away from apartments to townhouses and terraces. The Panel also improved the
original master plan, particularly street hierarchy, the strength of the green route and
movementthroughthesite.However,thePanelwasengagedtoolatetoinuencethe
inadequateinexiblemasterplanorchangexedminds.
Panel reports raise various concerns, not least the long development time, the multiple
changesinthedesignteamandlackofintegrationbetweenthedierentphasesof
development. The master plan never resolved the issues of a long narrow site and the way
the plots were divided. When it became clear that the plan did not work, the LA, nervous
about losing the outline permission, encouraged the developer to keep changing architects.
Neither the supermarket nor school have been delivered and, in a sense, Darwin Green has
been up staged by retail and community facilities in Eddington over the road.
The wide central avenue leads to a non-destination cul-de-sac of main square and empty
supermarket lot. It used to have a bus gate in the main square but that has gone so there
is no through route except for bikes/pedestrians, whereas it would have been logical to link
HuntingdonandHistonRoadsandmanagethroughtracdierently.
The unfriendly library and community centre will struggle to work in the ‘barren’ civic square,
which is a hard surface disaster with expensive bollards, and scattered seats and bike stands.
The two public buildings have a presence, but the square is over-scaled, bleak and soulless.
There is no retail operation in place nor are any likely to come forward. There is no school
on site yet, which could at least provide animation and activity. It should have been an early
development, but the main problem is scale.
49

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Darwin Green looks very leafy on Mark Reeves Architects and Barratt Homes websites,
but there may be problems of shading, especially on the long SW facing park side
homes. Excessive unprotected glazing will lead to overheating and the Panel stressed the
importanceofmicro-climaticcoolingandthebenecialeectofvegetationandlandscaping.
The quality of the frontages to new residential blocks is poor and the build quality in the
aordablehousingisinadequate.Thereisexcessivehardsurfacing,thelargegreenspace
might have been better integrated if spread through the scheme and there could have been
more trees along the main access road. Swales are engineer-designed with steep sides and
notveryusableasadventureplaygroundsorpicnicspots.Thetertiarystreetscomeobest
but still miss important systems thinking – for example the absence of rain gardens.
In Darwin Green the site is long and thin and the central boulevard means the parcels don’t work so well.
50

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Darwin Green principal street and site of absent supermarket
Darwin Green tertiary street (Shrewsbury Avenue by Allies and Morrison) performs better
51

2. Eddington
3,100 homes
37% built to date
Net density 53dph
47% public open space
52

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Need to integrate residents, the
existing communities and short-
stay graduates. Supported the
early community centre and
school but the public space will
need managing
Theschoolhasbeenlledwith
kids from elsewhere but the
social side is beginning to work
with community engagement in
landscape management. Good
groundoorworkplacesin
Knights Park
Connectivity Good permeability but parking
needs managing on a sitewide
basis and doubts about
underground car parking and
dual cycle lanes
LittletracandoneofKnights
Park underground car parks has
never opened
Character Great architectural aspirations but
too many character areas and its
nearly all beige
The swales are a great feature
and Knights Park swale has
been replanted. Generally the
landscape is weak – ‘a twig’ of an
oak tree will be replaced
Climate Code 5 excellent; but questioned
the rainwater management
system; will the distributed heat
beaordable.Needtoconsider
rainwater detailing
Bad timing with the CHP and
unresolved rainwater plan needs
an Act of Parliament but it is
Code 5
Eddington is blessed with a single forward-looking landowner and developer,
committed to the long-term if not in perpetuity. There are many things to admire. It is
well connected at both the local and strategic level and to community facilities – the
beautiful community centre, the innovative primary school, the supermarket and the
civic and landscape spaces were provided up front. At rst it felt a bit empty, but that
has changed and there are cafes and bars and a growing character and liveliness. Covid
hit plans to activate the market square with independent shops and amenities and it
has been hard to vitalise this space, but the main square is getting better with a hair-
dressing bar with quiz nights, a new restaurant in the hotel, the Dulcedo Social café,
and a beer festival.
There were pockets of valuable landscape, which were protected, creating accessible
landscapes where people can walk and enjoy nature around the new lake system and the
rainwater management system. The green aspects of the master plan and the sustainable
water systems, are made visible, making the streets greener, cooler and adding to the
overall appearance. It is a nice space to walk through to rather than taking the car.
As you walk around you notice there are fewer cars, because car ownership is lower, and
because there is ample underground car parking and much less street level parking. There is
littletraconthestreets,soitissafetocycle.Thereisatowncentreshuttle-busservicefrom
the adjacent park and ride, and a dedicated cycleway into the centre of Cambridge and to
Girton and Coton, so there is easy access to the countryside. There are open courts, that create
a natural intimacy and this sense of protection is distinct from the purely public streetscapes.
53

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Housing is designed to Code Level 5 compliance and 20% of energy needs are met through
renewablesourcesonsite.Theatroofsarepartofthelandscape-climateresiliencestory,
with roofs covered in photovoltaic, and part of the rainwater attenuation system.
There were some miscalculations. Car parking was overprovided and one of the two
undergroundcarparksisempty,whichimpliesawasteofembodiedcarbonandasignicant
cost. On Knights Park there are 700 housing units and only 70 parking permits have been
let.Theprimaryschoolcameonstreamearlyandhaslledupwithchildrenfromelsewhere
and so there is reverse travelling. The rainwater recycling system ran into problems with
compliancewithAngliaWaterandthegas-reddistrictheatingsystemnowseemsa
mistake.ThetracnoisefromtheM11wasgreaterthananticipatedandthelandscape
bundsdidnotblockthesoundsoacousticlouvreshadtoberetrottedtodwellingscloserto
the motorway, which caused some detailed design issues for windows and balcony doors.
Perhaps most critically, the commercial viability of such an expensive scheme was not fully
understoodatthetimeandtheUniversityisfacingsignicantchallenges.Sayahouseor
aatinEddingtonisworth£600persquarefoot.Itcosts£300persquarefoottobuildit
plus 10-20% design fees. That brings it down to £180 per square foot to fund two planning
processes, the master plan, outline planning and reserve matters, all the infrastructure,
roads, sewers, drainage and all of the section 106 contributions of schools, public spaces,
andaordablehousing.Halfthesiteisloss-makingaordablehousingandthatlosshasto
besubsidisedbytheprotfromthemarkethousing.
All these issues are the teething problems of massive complex schemes and can and
will be resolved.
Eddington master plan and detail for Knights Park
54

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What hits you with Knights Park is lots of complexity, style, and contemporary architecture.
It feels designed to be kept neat with underground waste collection and gives the strong
impression that the University has set its stamp on it. Pollard Thomas Edwards and Alison
Brooks Architects are working collaboratively to deliver a complex but visually simple
developmentofhousesandapartments.Intriguinglytheoveralleectisoneofrepetitive
elements, but the planning is far from simple with many variants designed for their location
anddesiredmix.Thisdemandssucientdesignfeesandconstructionmanagement,butit
can be done elsewhere if the need and ambition is there.
After Covid there was poor management by the University but by the time of the site visits
for this report that had all changed. The planting in Florey Terrace swales has been replaced
and is properly maintained by gardeners who to talk to residents.
Thereisadierentcommunitydynamictotheotherschemes.Thepopulationismoremobile,
staying 3-4 years rather than what used to be considered the standard 7-8 years. Cohesion
and community energy will change over time as more long-term market housing residents
are housed and this probably will not be an issue. Increased activation at weekends and
evenings will have a meaningful impact on the way people experience the place.
Therearequestionswhetherthereissucienttreecanopyorplacestositincomfort,
concern about wind funnelling along the long avenues and the potential over-heating in
some of the apartments. The public realm in Eddington feels ‘hard-edged’ and lacks the
landscape softness of Marleigh.
The key take-away is the controlling hand of the University. The local planning authority are
fully engaged and the continuity of personnel has paid dividends. Eddington is unique in
that the client is the University of Cambridge. There’s an interesting interaction between a
mature responsible client and a well-resourced and supportive local authority that probably
is not replicable in the majority of scenarios.
Contemporary housing by Alison Brookes Architects
55

3. Marleigh
1,300 homes
25% built to date
Net density 57dph
 30%aordable
56% public open space
56

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Good facilities in the right places
but will the allotments and sports
pitches work for everyone
The square and Hanger community
centre are beginning to work and
support the multi-ethic community
with growing integration with
surrounding estates
Connectivity Broadly good but streets are
places for people not just cars
Good with the park and ride next
door, a bus route and cycleways
but why the segregated cycle
route on both sides of the local
low-use road
Character Good urban square: need
Marshalls to act as an agile
master developer
The housing is neat and tidy. Good
connections to local landscape but
little development for encouraging
social encounters. The swale is
seen as dangerous
Climate Good strategy but
consider orientation
Approaching Passivhaus and good
highergroundoors
On a windy rainy day the market square in front of the Hanger community centre
seems bare and barren. Nevertheless the buildings enclosing it coordinate successfully.
It is well-used, people congregate here to collect children from school and there is a
shop on the corner. There is an outdoor cinema in the square and a market that are
very popular. There needs to be better shelter for mums to meet outside the school
and the tiny trees will eventually grow and give shade and delight.
The centre, Jubilee Square, is largely built out and there is a primary school, a nursery, a
community hall, a shop and a cafe. The neat and tidy housing styles are simple , crisp and
eectiveandgettingtowardsPassivhausstandards.TheDesignCodeemulatedtheLondon
Design Guide with a ceiling height of 2.5m rather than the developer’s standard 2.4m. The
dierenceallowedtheinstallationoffanlightsaboveentrancedoorsandtallerwindowsand
means that Marleigh has something of a London style with active frontages.
Hill, the developers, are particularly interested in Marleigh providing an understanding
about aspects of sustainability they can deliver elsewhere. They want to better understand
howtogetitallright–streetscape,landscaping,navigationandway-nding–ratherthan
focus on one element.
There are strong connections to the natural features within and adjacent to site, the swales
and Kings Wood form a backdrop to development but are poorly integrated to deliver high
quality landscape.
57

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Marleigh is well-connected to the park and ride and is on a bus route along Newmarket Road
with links into cycleways to North Cambridge station and Fen Ditton. The new play area is
well placed to encourage interaction with the existing community of Abbey and Barnwell to
the west and is used by both Marleigh and Abbey children.
Water features for drainage are used as features in the heart of the scheme, but the swales,
with their steep sides, are seen as dangerous by residents, and clumsy metal fences have
been inserted in the ‘Titch’ swale to make it safer. Delivery access at the rear of Gregory Park
South is problematic with delivery vans driving down the walkway between the houses and
the Gregory Park swale.
The green connections are in place and working with the scale of buildings. There might be
issues and tensions in some of the communal spaces, for example in the four large hammer-
head cul-de-sacs of hard paving and no planting or trees on the northern boundary of the
site. But we were told that people put furniture out in the summertime and create ‘edible’
spaces.Theprivategrassbordersagainsthousesseemdiculttomaintain.
Open spaces are good for visibility but channel wind down between rows of three-storey
town houses along the main avenue.
Cost cutting may have undermined some of the designers’ intentions. Front doors have
droppedandfaded,andpatiodoorshavedroppedandarediculttoopen.Gasboxesand
pipe work spoil the clean lines of houses.
Marleigh master plan
58

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Marleigh is a very mixed community with 70 families from Hong Kong and some Ukrainian
families. Catrin Horrex, the Baptist minister from Barnwell, is in the community centre most
days to meet mums picking up children after school. She described how everyone has the
same experiences and everyone feels in it together. She said some people in Abbey resent
residents of Marleigh who they feel are treated better, and they need to organise more joint
events. Having said that, the toddler group and the school has children from Abbey who feel
part of the community.
ResidentshavecreatedanunocialWhatsAppgroupofover300peoplethat’svery
successful. Foreign families need guidance about what they’re allowed to do. There’s still a
developer presence here and people are not sure what is public and what is private and have
not taken ownership of it.
The Hanger Community Centre, she said, is brilliant and has a desk for a community
development worker. Fen Ditton Parish Council have a room upstairs, there’s a book group
and the Pilates studio is busy. Health provision is poor in the whole of East Barnwell and
there are many people with complex needs who are struggling.
The key take-aways that are replicable elsewhere include: encouraging development
connections with adjacent open/ green spaces and green corridors as an asset for the
residents and community and a strong emphasis on community building from the
beginning, with well-placed community facilities that are open and welcoming.
Marleigh town houses and swale along Gregory Park
59

4. Great Kneighton
2,163 homes
100% built to date
Net density 55dph
 40%aordable
64% public open space
60

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Needs a community development
plan to make connections with
existing communities, and small-
scale shops and businesses on the
groundoor
Exemplary community/health
centre/library. Community is
thriving with good links with
Trumpington. Plenty of shops
around the community centre
Connectivity Addenbrookes roundabout and
highway engineering splays in
the lanes
The roundabout is a big mistake
but the road network works well
and sensitively
Character Good early landscape
engagement: housing typologies
give a distinctive character
The richness of the buildings,
their typologies and landscape
are admirable
Climate ConsiderorientationforPVs;why
are there lower standards for
market housing
Overall, Great Kneighton, particularly Abode, the Seven Acres Skanska development,
and Aura near Long Road, are examples of good high quality new housing that we can
learn a lot from.
Great Kneighton is 10-12 years old and is maturing nicely. Some interfaces between the
parcels are a little messy but overall, it is a very walkable. successful neighbourhood that
is always busy with people using the shops and facilities in the centre, or out for a walk. At
a weekend lots of families use the parks. place-wise, it is a very connected neighbourhood
and a diverse community of people. It is a real success and has won a number of RIBA and
housing design awards.
Thedevelopers,Countryside,hadtheluxuryofbeingabletoaordastrongdesignteam
andtoallowthemtorunwithideasthatmostdeveloperswouldhavebeenhorriedby
at the time. They got various architects to come to a design code testing day, which was a
useful way of testing some of the principles at the outset.
Proctor and Matthews were architects for the southern half of the site and Tate Hindle the
northern part. In Bedfordshire Pilgrim they had a strong Housing Association partner. They
couldnotget40%aordabletoworkinitially,andtherewerechallengestodeliveratenure-
blind community. The Abode scheme, however, was designed to meet Housing Association
spacestandards,becauseifthemarketfellaway,andnobodycouldaordtobuy,they
neededtogeneratecashowtokeepthebusinessgoing.
There were challenges with the Bovis scheme which took the company out of their comfort
zone. For commercial reasons, they let their architects go and handed over to their in-house
people who did the cost-value exercise that neither the local authority nor the Panel were
happy with. They got Levitt Bernstein to design a better scheme.
61

Appendix: The Six Schemes
In contrast, Abode just across the road, is looking good and Aura, the Tate Hindle scheme,
is really successful. The plan form of Abode provides decent sized living spaces and through
kitchens. There’s a generosity of circulation space with decent landings and quality of life.
In terms of adaptability, there’s not as much space to extend but people have found ways
of doing it. People have been very inventive, and you see a whole series of additional
structures. What is slightly alarming is the impact on the garden. It comes down to how well
they’re managed through the planning process. The City Council does not have minimum
back-to-backdistances,soalotofeortwentintotheplanninginterlocking,daylight
and sunlight. Accordia had something similar 10-12 years ago, which then led to it being
designated as a conservation area. So there are some challenges.
There are issues of public transport. There was a 30-minute bus service but nobody used it
and it was cancelled. The busway through the site is closed because two people got hit by
buses. The Addenbrookes access road designed for 23,000 vehicle movements a day, was a
challengingpieceofinfrastructureinthemiddleoftherstphaseofthedevelopment.
CarparkinginAbodeisexibleandyoucansqueezetwocarsinifyouwant.Carparkingis
sized to accommodate modern vehicles and if you have one vehicle or no vehicle, you can
appropriatethespace.Ifyouuseyourcarparkingforstorage,youeectivelyloseyourcar
parking space.
The important thing about Abode is that it is helped urban designers within planning
authorities, and it has helped clients. It challenges standards – back-to-back distances and
standard street widths – to allow the creation of a denser, more sustainable, better use of
space.TheywereabletocreatesomethingdierentthatmetCambridgeaspirationsfor
sitesongreenbelteldsandalsometsomeoftheneedsofnearbyTrumpington,likethe
doctor’s surgery.
Great Kneighton phasing plan and detail of Abode
62

Appendix: The Six Schemes
There were deliberate moves to create a diversity of product, which is useful for the
business, to keep the cash coming in to be able to fund the infrastructure. This means not
building the same everywhere. When they got to subsequent phases, they started repeating
typologiesbecausetheywerepopular.Oneoftherstphasetypologieswasanurbanhouse
without a garden, but with three good-sized balconies. They sold out in a weekend.
Peoplesaythisisgreat,butthisisinCambridgeandwecannotaordtodoitelsewhere.
Whattheydonotrealisethatitis40%aordablehousing,theintegrationofwhichisoneof
the big successes of Great Kneighton.
Mews street in Abode
Clay Farm Community Centre
63

5. Northstowe
10,000 homes
14% built to date
Net density 40+dph
 40%aordable
30% public open space
64

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Support for town council and
early construction of school
and community centre but
are the links with the existing
communities strong enough?
A vibrant community was being
developed but were the links
with Longstanton, Oakington and
Rampton working as well?
Connectivity Concern about cars and parking
and about segregation of the
guided bus when it comes
through the town
The main road was too wide and
treeless,withunnishedbike
lanes used as parking. The streets
do not work as places because
they are divided down the centre
line of the road
Character Landscape needs to be functional,
used and managed; spine road is
too wide. Consider joining phases
mid-block rather than mid-road
The landscape had been
engineered without much thought
about how it would be used and
no tree strategy
Climate Goodfabricrstapproach(2013)
but need to consider orientation
Not much evidence of this being
progressive or healthy
Northstowe may one day be the largest New Town since Milton Keynes. It has been in
development since 2007 and was announced as an NHS Healthy New Town in 2016. The
quality of Northstowe is of utmost importance, as it is the largest strategic housing
opportunity around Cambridge. Northstowe might have become one of the largest towns
in Cambridgeshire, with only Cambridge and Peterborough rivalling it in size. But the
slow incremental development has meant that it is evolving into an exurb of the city.
Itis25yearssincethestartofNorthstoweand7yearssincetherstresidentsmovedin.
and there have been major setbacks with the 2008 global recession and Covid. Homes
England are currently trying to rectify some of the mistakes Gallagher made in Phase 1 in
failingtoappointmasterplannersordevelopamasterplan,sellingoplotstomultiple
housebuilders, installing bellmouths before schemes had been designed, and leaving
cyclewaysunnishedsotheygetusedforparking.Gallagherparcelledtheallocationof
1500 homes into 13 bits with a consequential lack of connection. They did not have a long-
term interest and their sites were depressing because they were pretty much devoid of any
vegetation. Most of the trees were shown in back gardens, so they’re either going to be
fruit trees, or they’ll be cut down, and the few street trees are planted in paving, too close to
buildings. And Gallagher never delivered the social facilities for Northstowe Phase 1 upfront
when they were needed and there is a severe lack of retail provision.
As of May 2020 approximately 550 homes in Northstowe were occupied, with the Bloor
Homes site completed and various active housebuilding sites: Bovis, Linden, Taylor Wimpey
andBarratt.Playingelds,allotments,andpublicspaceswereunderdevelopment.
A Northstowe style is emerging with variations on Bloor’s gable ends leading to a Barratt
parcel with elegant cross gables. However, the town houses front housebuilder standard
homes. The Urban Splash scheme designed by Proctor and Matthews makes a distinctive
place, albeit with terrible staining from the pigment in the mortar.
65

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Market interest is shifting to Phase 2 so Gallagher’ Phase 1 will be ‘the poor end of
Northstowe’. Homes England now have two parcels on site: phase 1 by Urban Splash and
phase 2 by Keepmoat.
There are some positive aspects. A vibrant community has been developed with early
delivery of the primary school, part of which was being used as a community centre. A
temporary ‘Cabin’ community centre has been provided while the permanent building is
built. There is a Town Council and many clubs and societies. Most children cycle to school
and there are excellent play facilities.
There’s good green infrastructure, good provision of parks and play, and access to nature.
AndtherstprimaryschoolwasdeliveredonPhase1beforeanyhomesandonPhase2the
secondaryschoolwastherstbuildingdelivered.Thegreenngersarepullingittogether
into a legible structure. Disappointingly the streets are not delivering, and the car-based,
suburban density model has meant that parts are wide open and bleak. Much of the housing
is housebuilder standard and the layout haphazard, especially those in a prime position
overlooking a lake. The main road varies in quality with some good bits but the integration of
the street trees was ad-hoc and there was not a coherent public realm strategy.
There are some exceptional parts of the site including large lakes which should be special
places, but an architectural response is missing. The lakeside landscaping could be
moreinterestingandusablewhilstoeringagreatervarietyofhabitatforwildlife.
There appears to be a lack of responsibility for maintenance and everywhere appears
unnishedandunmanaged.
There are some attractive streets and the beginnings of pleasant parks; but many key
streets have little space for any planting and are dominated by transport infrastructure. The
tertiary roads seemed stark, austere and hard. There are not any places where people can
step outside and meet a neighbour or sit and read a paper. Homes England have a mandate
make Northstowe as good as can be and their parcels will achieve a step change in quality.
The challenge is that Phase 1 established an expectation, and much of it is ordinary.
Northstowe master plan and detail of Phase 1 Gallagher’s development
66

Appendix: The Six Schemes
The community is establishing itself. Early occupancy of primary and secondary schools has
helped. The temporary portacabin community centre will soon be replaced by a purpose-
built facility. Play areas are well used and popular. Cycle paths are generous and well used
by children and adults. There is a Northstowe electric bike hire scheme. However, a survey of
339Northstoweresidentsin2023revealedthat77%wereeither‘fairlydissatised’or‘very
dissatised’withtheirlocalservicesandamenities.24
TogetherwiththenewhousingNorthstowewillbeasignicantplacebutuntilthesecond
andthirdphasesgetgoingitwillbediculttoassesstheintegrationoftheplacewiththe
neighbouring villages of Longstanton, Oakington and Rampton.
Northstowe Phase 1 3-story town houses on the main square and standard low-density development behind
24 Northstowe: a survey of residents (2023) Cambridge Research Group, Cambridgeshire County Council
67

6. North Ely
3,000 homes
25% built to date
Net density 32dph
24%aordable
68

Appendix: The Six Schemes
What the panel suggested What we found
Community Where is the community focus? The primary school has provided
a community focus but is it
properly connected
Connectivity The main access road needs to
be a street for people; the whole
development is an island with no
pedestrian or cycle links into the
city along the southern boundary
No links into the city and a
ransom strip along southern
edge; the access road has no trees
or play spaces; extensive inline car
parking and garages
Character Where is the Ely-ness? Planted
edges need to be developed and
brick walls preferred to larch
fencing. How will the parameter
plan control quality when the sites
aresoldo?
Hopkins Homes are very
recognizable and well-built with
large gable chimney stacks and
traditional detailing. Too much
hard surfacing. Taylor Wimpey
cannot match their quality
Climate Danger of overheating; need trees
for cooling and think orientation
forPVs
HopkinsdonotdoPVs
The Ely local plan of 2015 allocated 3,000 houses in North Ely plus school provision and
local centres, including the delivery of a new country park as a continuation of existing
community space within the city. Endurance Estates are developing the land to the
west of Lynn Road and the Church Commissioners are developing the land to the east.
The Church Commissioners had been involved in development before the local plan and
securedconsentin2018fortherstphaseof800housestobedeliveredacrossfourphases,
includingthelocalcentre,anewprimaryschoolandtherstphaseoftheCountryPark.
Community engagement by the Church Commissioners suggested that residents wanted a
traditionalvernacularforNorthEly.Theyareintheprocessofcompletingtherstphaseof
200 houses by Redrow homes.
Endurance Estates obtained planning permission for 1,200 units and worked with the County
to deliver the primary school. The school opened in 2016 and Hopkins Homes completed the
purchaseoftherstphaseof199unitsin2017.
On both sides of Lynn Road, construction is in progress but with seemingly little urgency to
get on to the next parcel on the Church Commissioners’ land. There have been delays and
viability issues across the whole development, which has meant that the local centres, live-
work units, the country park and part of the master plan access have been delayed. There is
nowhere near a critical mass of people yet to make this a thriving community that will one
day be half the size of Ely.
69

Appendix: The Six Schemes
ElyisnotfarfromCambridge,yetitappearsfromadierentworld.Moveonlyashortway
from the Ely town centre’s urban character with tightly knit streets, the river, Cathedral close
and modest retail centre and the new developments convey none of these qualities. The
whole area around Ely is highway dominated with roundabouts and distributor roads. New
housing must accommodate to this and nobody has properly addressed how connections
across the road should be made or how buildings should address existing roads.
In the Endurance Estate’s western side of the master plan the disparate arrangement of
individual buildings is for now the full extent of what will one day be the local centre. Looking
back, the Cathedral is clearly visible and within walking distance. Holding on to this view of
the Cathedral tower was one of the aims of the master plan and it will be interesting to see
how it fares in the future. The cycle infrastructure is unconnected to the city because the LA
did not do their bit.
Hopkins Homes have an established reputation for a traditional character that appeals to
the local market and houses are predominantly semi-detached or detached with at least two
or three parking spaces including car ports with rooms over and garages. They appear well
built.Therstphasehassetthebarforfutureparcelsfromotherhousebuilders.Butthe
densitiesarelowandthelayoutsconventionalandproigateofland.Thestreetsareaccess
roads with few trees and not places with scattered play spaces.
North Ely master plan
70

Appendix: The Six Schemes
Taylor Wimpey have tried to follow Hopkins’ lead but have not achieved the equivalent
quality and repeat the failings seen at Northstowe, Darwin Green and elsewhere, with large
areas of hard paved surfacing, engineered drainage solutions lacking rain gardens, and with
few trees, oversized swales and no apparent links to the established neighbourhood. There
is no community focus yet. The park and play areas could have been moved closer to the
centre and been enclosed by houses on all sides.
The primary school is placed close to the development entrance with a care home opposite.
Interestingly many of the children seem to come in from Ely, possibly a function of the slow
buildout.Buthavingthefacilityinplacefromthestartshouldbenetthelocalcommunity.
The local centre site is undeveloped with problems of delivery and timing, which leaves a
hole in what should be the centre of the site. The contract with the Co-op supermarket went
by the board and the developers will need to apply for new outline permission for a change
of use. The economics of a new development make it a challenge.
There is no cycle network to speak of. And water treatment feels like it has had a classic
traditional approach with everything underground: no bringing it to the surface. The District-
owned strip to south was used as a ransom strip and stopped the developers fronting the
road, which becomes a by-pass with roundabouts. This led to single-sided streets which are
unaordable.Thereisagreatdealofhardsurfacewithbigswalesbutnorills,raingardensetc.
It feels like it could be denser and more Fenland edge. It feels homogenous and evenly
spaced with lots of road and not much in between. It does not feel like part of Ely. None
of the ambition that we’re seeing in central Cambridge seems to have bled out this far. It
is a shame because Ely is such a lovely city, with a closeness and intimacy, and with some
beautifully preserved terrace streets. We could do more to connect the existing parts of that
city to these large developments on the edge.
Hopkins Homes houses on the Endurance Estates development west of Lynn Road.
71

People interviewed
Panel members
• David Birkbeck
• Oliver Smith
• Meredith Bowles
• Simon Carne
• Lynne Sullivan
• Luke Engleback
• David Taylor
• Kirk Archibald
• Lindsey Wilkinson
Local authority
planning ocers
• Jonathan Brookes
• Glen Richardson
• Trovine Monteiro
• Nigel Eggar (CCC Highways)
• Shane Luke (CCC Highways)
• Emma Davies
Applicants
• Andrew Day (Hill)
• James Pickett (Hill)
• Will Berry (Hill)
• Jeremy Thurby (Hill)
• Heather Topel (ex AECOM)
• Jonathan Gimblett (ex-Countryside)
• Duncan Jenkins (Endurance Estates)
• Joanne Loxon (Church Commissioners)
• Dean Harris (Homes England)
• Mark Parsons (Univ Cambridge)
• Matt Johnson (Univ Cambridge)
Designers
• Tim Makower
• Jonathan Rose
• Teresa Borsuk
• Stephen Proctor & Andrew Matthews
• JoMcCaerty(LevittBernstein)
• Teresa Borsuk (PTE)
• Ian Smith (Smith Gore)
• Peter Corrie (North Ely)
• Michael Mueller (Alison Brookes)
Residents and Others
• Ellen Cox, Michaela Stan and
Michele Eldevik-Skinner (Northstowe
Community Development Workers)
• LouiseLord(DevelopmentOcer
Sustainable Communities)
• Judit Cabello (CCC and resident Great
Kneighton)
• George Crawley (Darwin Green)
• Iain McMath (res=ident Eddington)
• Tom Parkin (Land trust Marleigh)
• Rev. Catrin Horrex (Barnwell Baptist
Church - Marleigh Congregation)
72

People interviewed
People interviewed in 2018
for Achieving Quality in
Cambridge –Review of the
Cambridge Quality Charter
Panel members
• Robin Nicholson, Member, Cullinan
Studio
• David Birkbeck, Chief Executive, Design
for Homes
• Simon Carne, Architect Planner Urban
Designer, CQP member
• David Prichard, Co-Founder and
Consultant, Metropolitan Workshop LLP
Local authority
planning ocers
• Jonathan Brookes, Principal Urban
Designer, Cambridge City Council
• Jane Green, Development Delivery
Manager, South Cambs DC
• Juliet Richardson, Head Service, Growth
& Economy, Cambridgeshire CC
• Peter Studdert, former Director of
Planning at Cambridge City Council
(pending)
Applicants
• Heather Topel, Project Director,
University NW Cambridge
• Emma Fletcher, Managing Director,
Smithson Hill, Ex Marshall
• Duncan Jenkins, Project Director,
Endurance Estates
• Andrew Taylor, Head of Planning,
Countryside Properties (formerly
Barratt Homes)
Designers
• Robert Rummey, Managing Director,
Rummey Design
• Teresa Borsuk, Partner, Pollard Thomas
Edwards (PTE)
Others
• Nigel Howlett, CEO, Cambridge Housing
• Society
• Kathy MacEwen, Hounslow LB, Ex CABE
design review
73

This report evaluates housing schemes in Cambridgeshire and the role of the
Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in maintaining quality. It aims to determine if the high
standards seen in Cambridgeshire can be replicated elsewhere in the UK.
Thereportusesthevoicesoftheprotagonists–planningocers,councillors,applicantsand
Quantity Panel members – to tell the story of how Cambridgeshire embraced growth and set
a path of high quality development and better housing.
It describes innovations in the planning process and analyses new housing typologies in six
large housing schemes. Finally it assesses the relevance for other places.
NEW NEIGHBOURHOODS IN CAMBRIDGE
74