Question 40. How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages?
It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire, including Cottenham, have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004; although sites were allocated in some villages in the Site Specific Allocations DPD in 2010 and for the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is noted that in recent years a number of planning applications have approved and appeals have been allowed for residential developments on sites located outside the settlement boundary for Cottenham. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages, including Cottenham, to accommodate additional development; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. Cottenham is designated as a Rural Centre. It has a good range of services and facilities including a supermarket and convenience stores; post office; doctors surgeries; dentist; library; public houses; restaurant/takeaway; bank; schools; village hall and meeting spaces. If, as expected, there is limited capacity for additional development in Cottenham then additional sites on the edge of the settlement should be identified in emerging CGLP.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that the Local Plan should be flexible towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. It is considered that the Local Planning Authority should be more flexible to the scale of development within the village framework and should allow a more flexible approach to development on the edge of villages. The adopted settlement hierarchy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan recognises that there are sustainable villages within the District that can appropriately accommodate levels of growth that can both contribute towards meeting the strategic needs of the Plan area. Accordingly, a flexible approach to development should be applied to the most sustainable settlement. The Dairy Farm site controlled by Southern and Regional Developments (Swavesey) at Boxworth End, Swavesey represents a deliverable and appropriate example of an edge of village set that can be sensitivetly developed to contribute towards the strategic requirements of the new Local Plan. It is beneficially located within walking distance of an established range of services within the village, including a secondary school, which supports the suitability and sustainability of the site for development. Although the site is not affected by national designations, it is acknowledged that the site provides local viewpoints of the wider countryside. This landscape contribution relates to the countryside frontage of the site alongside the western boundary formed by the highway frontage. Development at an approproate scale would preserve this landscape setting by way of maintaining views eastwards towards the Fens and wider countryside, through a detailed and sympathetic development design proposal. This will include the conservation of key views across the site, sustaining the existing "glimpses" of the countryside that protrude into the village and contribute towards its character. A spatial strategy which considers development at the edge of villages should ensure that it maximises sustainable development opportunities. It is considered that sites such as at Boxworth End, Swavesey present such opportunities and omission of them will result in a spatial strategy which has not appropriately explored all deliverable or realistic directions of growth to assist in meeting the demanding housing needs for Greater Cambridge. Summary of Comments: Development at the edges of villages is supported, as it is a sustainable approach which can contribute towards meeting the OAN of the Plan area.
No uploaded files for public display
Development on the edge of villages should give consideration to settlement character and identity. Development of jobs and homes should seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment through appropriate development that minimises harm to the historic environment through careful siting and appropriate design. Coalesence is to be avoided. There may be some villages that are more or less suited to absorbing additional growth, in part dependent upon their historic character and settlement morphology. Consideration will need to be given to the capacity of individual villages and their sensitivity to change.
No uploaded files for public display
4.94 The Plan should be flexible in this respect and recognise the importance of dispersing housing, employment and other development away from Cambridge and instead in locations, such as the edge of villages, that are in close proximity to major roads such as the A14. 4.95 This will assist in reducing land demand and transport capacity issues associated with Cambridge City Centre, the Cambridge Science Park and Addenbrookes Hospital and the Biomedical Campus.
No uploaded files for public display
There should be some flexibility towards the development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages, if the village boundaries are to be drawn tightly around the villages. This will be more important if there are few housing and employment sites in or around villages. Housing and employment in villages will have multiple benefits. These are: they will contribute towards the need of Greater Cambridge, contribute towards the vitality of the villages, which will reduced the need for new and existing residents to travel into urban areas to access services, facilities and employment.
No uploaded files for public display
European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) consider that the Local Plan should be flexible toward development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. It is considered that the policy approach should apply flexibility with regard to the scale of development to be provided for at villages and the ability to amend the Development Frameworks to accommodate additional housing requirements, ensuring a flexible approach to development on the edge of villages. The adopted settlement hierarchy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan recognises that there are sustainable villages within the District that can appropriately accommodate levels of growth that can both contribute towards meeting the strategic needs of the Plan area and a flexible approach to development should be applied to the most sustainable settlement. The site controlled by European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) at Dry Drayton Road, Oakington represents a deliverable and appropriate example of an edge of village site. Although the site is designated as Green Belt, it is considered that existing development along Dry Drayton Road, such as the Oakington Garden Centre establishes a significantly urbanising influence over this particular area of Green Belt. Furthermore, this development encloses the promotion site to the south as well as to the north, which diminishes the openness of the site characterised by its undeveloped nature. Therefore, it is maintained that the site at Dry Drayton Road provides an appropriate and suitable location to secure new development that will not result in harmful impacts on the Green Belt at this location. Given that the overall openness of the Green Belt to the south of Oakington has been reduced by the presence of built form along the highway, it would be appropriate for the Authorities to consider a site for development at this location. Although the site would technically be regarded as edge of village in the context of planning policy, its immediate context is not open to the wider rural landscape and so its enclosure by existing built form lessens its typical edge of settlement characteristics. A spatial strategy should be advanced that provides for new development at the edge of villages to ensure that it maximises sustainable development opportunities. It is considered that sites such as at Dry Drayton Road, Oakington represent such opportunities and omission of them will result in a spatial strategy which has not appropriately explored all deliverable or realistic directions of growth to assist in meeting the demanding housing needs for Greater Cambridge. Summary of Comments: Development at the edges of villages is supported, as it is a sustainable approach which can contribute towards meeting the OAN of the Plan area.
No uploaded files for public display
See answers to previous questions. This is a duplicate.
No uploaded files for public display
- The approach should take into account the circumstances of the village such as its size, whether or not it is in the Green Belt and the wishes of the existing community.
No uploaded files for public display
2.9 Summary Answer: We think it should be highly flexible not only to meet additional housing need but also to deliver sustainable enhancements to existing villages and rural areas more generally. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).
No uploaded files for public display
Summary: The Local Plan should be highly flexible towards development of jobs/homes on the edge of villages and be able to respond to changing circumstances. Full: The acknowledgment of the important role that villages play is strongly welcomed and it is critical that villages are provided with opportunities to grow in a sustainable way. The Greater Cambridge Shared Partnership states that 'the adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets a development framework (boundary) for each village, outside which development is heavily restrictive and the lack of new homes in villages has, at least in part, contributed to the decline in some of their services in recent years'. Additionally, it has led to a shortage of supply, where local people have often been unable to live near to their families and support network due to a lack of housing availability, as well as limiting opportunities for people to downsize. It is important that a blended approach to a new spatial strategy is taken that provides a wide range of housing types and tenures, particularly given the higher housing numbers that are likely to be required across the Greater Cambridge area. The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) 'Futures Work' looked at the interaction between land use and transportation and explored four potential spatial development options: a) densification b) dispersal c) fringe growth d) transport corridors Given the high level of housing required, and the need to build in flexibility, it is recommended that a single spatial option alone will not deliver for the specific needs of the whole area. There should be a flexible approach to development in villages, that recognizes communities' aspirations, as well as recognizing the needs of those seeking housing. Some viillages like Fulbourn are surrounded by the Cambridge Green Belt and it is recommended that a suffcient number of sites are removed from the Green Belt to provide flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
2.1 There should be a greater degree of flexibility over the provision of jobs and homes on the edge of villages. It is anticipated that the population increase of the Plan area will be in the order of 27.5%. This will result in the need for increased jobs and homes to support the population rise. In order to preserve the fabric of the built up areas, many of which are subject to heritage constraints, and historic infrastructure, releasing selective areas of Green Belt and other countryside land would enable the Plan to be positively prepared in order to seek opportunities to meet the development needs of the area, as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Releasing selective areas of Green Belt land will enable housing numbers in particular to be boosted.
No uploaded files for public display
CUH does not feel that it is appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the development strategy, but we wish to highlight two key points: 1. Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s) in the medium to long term would need to be proximate to the existing campus. This is being considered as part of the CUHP led work on the 2050 vision, due for publication by summer 2020, which may require a further Green Belt review in areas close to the existing campus. 2. As part of our housing case, we are advocating siting housing in accessible locations to the hospital, by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). We believe that the most sustainable travel patterns, with associated benefits for air quality, congestion and quality of life, could be achieved through an appropriate review of the Green Belt boundaries, as part of a blended development strategy. This could include development on the edge of Cambridge and adjoining villages well served by public transport
No uploaded files for public display
CUHP does not feel it appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the development strategy, but support the findings from the 2018 Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER). This concluded that, “a dispersal strategy, which seeks to relocate homes and businesses away from city centres is unlikely to be successful, as it is ‘agglomeration’ – the desire to be near other companies – that attracts companies to the area. Other options, such as densification, fringe growth, and transport corridors all have potential benefits, and should be pursued to an extent, though none should be taken to its extreme.” Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) in the medium to long term may require policies supporting densification of the existing campus (both built and subject to extant consents under CBC Phase 1 and 2) and/or would need to be proximate to the existing campus, which may require a further Green Belt review. We would recommend that housing is sited in accessible locations to the campus, by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). Potentially, the most sustainable travel patterns, with associated benefits for air quality, congestion and quality of life, could be achieved through an appropriate review of the Green Belt boundaries, as part of a blended development strategy. This could include development on the edge of Cambridge and adjoining villages well served by public transport. A CBC Strategy Group with representation from all campus organisations has agreed to develop a Vision 2050 for the CBC. Subject to ratification by the CBC Strategy Group, this will be shared with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service by summer 2020 to define the extent, scale and location of development proposed throughout the timescale of the next Local Plan, and the anticipated number of jobs to be supported by the CBC by 2050. CUHP is committed to working with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to develop an appropriate policy framework to guide the future development of the CBC.
No uploaded files for public display
It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004; although sites were allocated within and on the edge of some villages in the Site Specific Allocations DPD in 2010 and for the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages to accommodate additional development; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. This is certainly considered to be so in the case of Sawston. Therefore, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages, in conjunction with a general policy that supports development within existing framework boundaries but without specifying any size limits. This suggested approach would ensure that sufficient land is allocated for development at villages to support services and facilities and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and would provide some flexibility about development within village boundaries so that the form and scale of development reflects site specific characteristics. In a Sawston context, such an approach would also ensure sufficient growth is delivered to meet the existing and future housing need and specifically affordable housing need. In 2018 there was an identified need for 169 affordable dwellings in Sawston for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018). If future growth is constrained, this unmet affordable housing need will remain unmet. In addition, further new dwellings are needed to help accommodate new jobs being created in Sawston, including up to 450 jobs at the Vision Centre on the former Spicers site in Sawston and an additional large number of jobs in Huawei’s business and research campus on the former Spicers site. The Mill Lane Site, on the edge of Sawston Village, is located just a short walk or cycle ride from the former Spicers site, across the A1301. Allocation and ultimate development of mixed housing on this particular site would enable jobs and homes to exist in close proximity to each other, thereby minimizing commute times and road congestion and promoting sustainable well-being.
No uploaded files for public display
7.2.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages, in particular, if development meets a particular local business or community need as set out within Para. 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under Para. 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.
No uploaded files for public display
Highly Flexible In Thakeham’s view, the strategy for allocating new development should include planning for larger scale development through a variety of strategies, including extensions to existing villages, which the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states is the best way to achieve supply of large numbers of new homes (Paragraph 74). The allocation of larger developments adjacent to village settlements can deliver much-needed affordable housing, as well as employment uses, open space, and other community facilities in rural areas. This will enable the benefits of economic growth of the District to be felt by rural communities, allowing them to grow and thrive in accordance with Paragraph 78 of the NPPF. The provision of new sustainable transport links (Greenways) and flexible co-working employment facilities through development in villages, will reduce the reliance on travel across the wider district, especially by private car, which will benefit the wider community. Please refer to the appended Vision Document titled 'Land east of Long Road, Comberton' produced by Thakeham.
No uploaded files for public display
Flexibility should be given to the development of jobs and homes on the edges of villages, within sustainable locations. As stated within the Issues and Options document at paragraph 5.2.5, the currently adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets a development framework for each village, outside which development is heavily restricted. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised dependant on their ‘sustainability’. Longstanton is categorised as a ‘Group Village’, along with 32 other villages. However, of the 32 group villages, Longstanton is clearly one of the more sustainable and has the ability to take a suitable quantum of housing growth as part of the emerging Local Plan. We encourage the next Local Plan to re-examine the approach currently taken to village growth and explore the re-grouping of village categories and flexibility on the scale of development within newer more specific village groups. Table 1 below shows a list of the villages included within Policy S/10: Group Villages of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and analyses the facilities provided within these villages. It is clear that the villages included within Policy S/10 vary significantly in terms of the services provided. It can be argued that the villages along the Cambridge Busway and with railway stations are significantly more sustainable. Furthermore, a number of the villages are situated within the Green Belt. Sequentially, in accordance with national policy, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances (NPPF paragraph 136). This should be considered as a key factor when selecting villages for growth as part of the new Local Plan. Longstanton is not only located along The Busway, it is also situated outside of the Green Belt. It also has a number of services, including a public house, primary school, post office and village store, doctors, veterinary, church, hairdressers, recreation ground and bowls green. Village Green Belt School(s) Village Shop Train Station Doctors /Post Office /Bus Way Balsham No Primary Yes No No Barrington No (east Primary Yes No No side abuts) Barton Yes Primary Yes No No Bourn No Primary Yes No Yes Castle Camps No Primary No No No Coton Yes Primary Yes – Farm Shop No No Dry Drayton Yes (to the Primary No No No north, east and south) Duxford No Primary Yes No No Elsworth No Primary Yes No No Eltisley No Primary No No No Fen Ditton Yes Primary No (But within No No close proximity) Fen Drayton No Primary Yes No No Fowlmere No (east Primary No No No abuts) Foxton No (east Primary Yes Yes No abuts) Great Abington No Primary Yes No No Great Wilbraham Yes Primary Yes No No Guilden Morden No Primary No No No Hardwick No (east Primary Yes No No abuts) Harston Yes Primary Yes No Yes Haslingfield Yes Primary Yes No No Hauxton Yes Primary No No No Highfields No Primary No No No Caldecote Little Abington No Primary – Yes No No Great Abington Longstanton No Primary x2 Yes Yes Yes Meldreth No Primary Yes Yes No Oakington No (south Primary Yes Yes No abuts) Orwell No Primary Yes No No Over No Primary No No Yes Steeple No Primary Yes No – (Ashwell & No Morden Moreden Station) Teversham Yes Primary No No No Thriplow Yes Primary Yes No No Whittlesford Yes Primary Yes Yes No Table 1: Services and Facilities within Group Villages at Policy S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. The Local Plan should be more flexible in particular at focussing development at the edge of the villages contained within Policy S/10 that rank higher in terms of sustainability. The new Plan should allow for more flexibility in allowing the development of sites that directly abut the development boundary of a village that are within areas of the countryside beyond the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
10.1 The spatial distribution of housing and employment is a key challenge for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP). As shown by the figures for the adopted Local Plans, the spatial distribution of housing growth is something of a balancing act with each type of sustainable development option required to play a role. 10.2 The delivery of the minimum 30,000 additional dwellings, identified in the Issues and Options document, will inevitably and rightly lead to the densification of urban areas. However, to relieve the pressure on urban areas and utilise other sustainable locations the GLCP will need to identify sites for housing in sustainable villages. As evidenced by the delivery of allocated sites in adopted plans and numerous planning applications approved during the period South Cambridgeshire District Council could not demonstrate a five-year land supply, land and development sites on the edge of established villages are capable of accommodating housing growth. These sites are able to come forward at a fast rate and are fully capable of delivering sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). On this basis the Councils should adopt a highly flexible and positive approach to directing employment and housing growth to the edge of sustainable villages. 10.3 The settlement of Impington and Histon is located to the north of Cambridge and lies within South Cambridgeshire. Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan (2018) identifies Histon and Impington as a Rural Centre. Rural Centres are classed as the largest, most sustainable villages in the district. Indeed, as set out in the submitted Site Promotion Document, the settlement possesses a wide range of shops, services, infrastructure, employment opportunities and public transport links. Our client supports and endorses Histon and Impington’s status as a Rural Centre and this designation should be continued in emerging GCLP. 10.4 Whilst adopted policy currently resists development outside of the settlement boundary at Rural Centres, there is no development limit (in terms of no. of dwellings) for sites within the settlement boundary. This policy wording reflects the positive sustainability credentials of Rural Centres such as Impington. Indeed, our client contends that this also indicates that should there by adequate infrastructure capacity and the potential for a high quality environmentally friendly scheme; the capacity of a site or development located outside, but immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, should not be unnecessarily constrained by an arbitrary limit. 10.5 All sustainable settlements have a role to play in accommodating growth; so that the wider programme for growth is delivered, but also to ensure established settlements continue to grow incrementally and thus support the long-term vitality of local services upon which residents rely. The level of growth afforded to each sustainable settlement should be based on: - Size of the current settlement; - Service provision and any planned improvements to local community infrastructure such as schools; - Access to Cambridge Bus Way and rail links; - Access to high quality local bus services; - Access to employment opportunities - Proximity to Cambridge - Proximity to key public transport corridors 10.6 As set out in our submitted Site Promotion Document Histon and Impington performs exceptionally well in respect of these key criteria. It is of vital importance that the Councils adopt a highly flexible approach to directing growth to the edge of sustainable villages in the emerging GCLP; especially the Rural Centres, such as Histon and Impington, which have sound and robust sustainability credentials. 10.7 The Land at Ambrose Way, Impington falls outside of the current settlement boundary for the village but adjoins it to the north west and south west. Whilst the site is currently located in the Green Belt, the evidence provided in our representations and accompanying Green Belt Appraisal demonstrate that the site performs poorly against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and is capable of coming forward for development without unduly damaging the integrity of the Cambridge Belt. 10.8 In light of the above the Ambrose Way site should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development through the GCLP. The site is capable of delivering up to 190 dwellings; and will deliver a scheme capable of addressing the ‘big themes’ of the GCLP.
No uploaded files for public display
Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) acknowledges the role of villages and states “planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and in particular Policy S/10 does not allow Group Villages like Orwell to grow and as a consequence, given improvements to facilities and local services are often a result of development, the existing policy position does not allow for this. We therefore suggest, the emerging Local Plan is more flexible to development on the edge of a Village which will align with the NPPF and provide opportunities for sustainable growth alongside supporting and/or enhancing local services.
No uploaded files for public display
Summary: Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by xx to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of xx, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Full Text: Highly Flexible Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by xx to make representations to the Greater Cambridge Issues and Options Local Plan (January 2020) in respect of their land interests to the north of xx, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth. It is essential the Councils promote a flexible approach to development in the villages as advocated by paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2019) as follows: Plans and decisions should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development… For plan making this means that: plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change. South Cambridgeshire is a predominantly rural district and whilst the City of Cambridge plays an important role in servicing the area, villages towards the periphery are more self-sufficient with smaller towns outside the District, for example Royston and Haverhill, providing higher level services. The NPPF (2019) requires planning authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and seeks to ensure that the long term viability of the more outlying rural communities are supported through rural diversification and the provision of new housing. In accordance with paragraph 78, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and goes onto give an example of how development in one village will support the services and facilities of a village nearby. The current approach towards development in villages set out in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) is too restrictive. Development opportunities should not be dismissed on the proviso that they would deliver more homes than a policy permits, and instead planning policy and decisions should apply the presumption in favour of development. In Infill Villages, for example, development is limited to 2 dwellings or less. It is not considered this conforms with the NPPF which seeks to promote rural communities and advocates flexibility. Is there are particular approach you would like the plan to take for your village? In the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018), Kneesworth is identified as an “Infill Village” in which development is currently restricted to schemes of no more than 2 dwellings. This would imply that the village is not sustainable, and has a poor range of services and facilities. This is not the case here and its identification as an Infill Village is not reflective of its sustainable location adjacent to Bassingbourn and proximity to Royston. The villages of Bassingbourn and Kneesworth are connected by ‘The Causeway’ and are collectively known as Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth. The built up settlement edges of the villages as they extend along The Causeway are located just 160 metres apart. The two villages are connected by a footway. The centre of the village of Kneesworth is located as follows from the following services in Bassingbourn: • Bassingbourn Primary School – 1.8km • Bassingbourn Village College (Secondary School) – 1.6km • Bassingbourn Pre-School – 1.7km • Convenience Store (including a Post Office) – 1.3km • Bassingbourn Surgery – 1.3km • Pharmacy – 1.3km • Community Hall – 1km This is on top of the existing services and places of employment within Kneesworth itself which include Bassingbourn Barracks, Kneesworth House Hospital, numerous independent shops and an Indian Restaurant. Access to higher level services including a train station are provided in Royston, located 2.5km south of the village and connected by a footway/cycleway. Bassingbourn and Kneesworth are served by bus route 127 which provides five daily return services to Royston (Monday to Saturday), which includes services at peak commuting times. Buses run at approximately two-hour intervals. There is also a daily return service on route 15 between Royston and Haslingfield. Royston railway station lies 3.3 km from the site. Royston is served by Thameslink and Great Northern commuter services between Cambridge, London and Brighton. Connections are possible with the 127 bus. It is therefore proposed that in forthcoming Local Plan, Bassingbourn and Kneesworth are considered as a single settlement ‘Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth’.
No uploaded files for public display
2.50. The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan classifies villages into four categories dependent on the availability of local services and public transport connectivity. Whilst broad support is given to this approach it discourages larger scale proposals which could incorporate or unlock the delivery of key facilities. As such the amount of housing (and number of jobs) to be delivered in villages should be considered more positively going forward. 2.51. It is strongly recommended that South Cambridgeshire District Council commissions an up to date settlement assessment identifying key facilities at each settlement taking into consideration planned transport improvements within the area.
No uploaded files for public display
The Greater Cambridge area consists of Cambridge City, a Green Belt and an extensive rural hinterland in South Cambridgeshire containing many villages. The current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan has set out a hierarchy of villages that it says reflects the ability to deliver sustainable development. However, this Joint Plan has to deliver a strategy to meet all the growth needs across the joint area in a sustainable way. Clearly there are limitations to the capacity of Cambridge to provide for growth and the Green Belt is in part, designed to restrict the outward expansion of the urban area. It is necessary therefore that the more sustainable villages will have a role in meeting a proportion of development need as part of the development strategy as part of the balanced approach to the provision of new sites for housing and jobs. This accords with the advice in para 78 of the NPPF that seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. In determining the sustainability of villages and their capacity to take growth the Council will need to revisit the Village Classification evidence to reflect the significant changes in public transport provision envisaged as part of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Transport Plan. As a result, far greater weight should be given to the accessibility of villages to the planned public transport improvements, these sustainable transport corridors and the ability to create more sustainable community infrastructure by growing those settlements. Moreover, it is clear that the current hierarchy that seeks to limit the number of new homes in each village type has substantially underestimated the ability of villages to accommodate sustainable growth. By way of example the 2018 Local Plan sets out a limit of 8, or exceptionally 15 dwellings in third tier S/10 Group Villages such as Hardwick. However, planning permissions have been granted for up to 250 new homes in Hardwick since 2016, highlighting that it is a sustainable location with capacity to accommodate a much higher level of growth. The current basis for a hierarchy and the scale of potential development in appropriate villages should be reviewed in the context of the planned investment in public transport corridors such as the Cambridge to Cambourne corridor. In particular, the Councils should grasp the opportunity to increase the delivery of small and medium sized sites in villages that are located in strategic transport corridors. Given the level of proposed investment in public transport between Cambourne and Cambridge, Hardwick should be identified as a village capable of providing small and medium sized sites because of its improving accessibility to a range of services and facilities in both Cambridge and Cambourne by means other than the car. This will ensure it is has direct public transport access to the secondary school and the range of other facilities in Cambourne along with the wide range of provision in Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
7.4 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages, in particular, if development meets a particular local business or community need as set out within Para. 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under Para 78. of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 7.5 Although Land to the south of Station Road, Harston, is currently located in the Green Belt, it is considered an appropriate location for a residential site allocation as the proposed development would form a moderate extension to the village. The accompanying site concept plan demonstrates that a suitable form and scale of development can be achieved on site without having a detrimental impact on the Green Belt as the development will continue to an existing form of development along Station Road.
No uploaded files for public display
7.1 The most effective approach to delivering the levels of development required is to ensure a wide variety of sites are allocated both in terms of size and location. This will ensure the consistent delivery across the plan period by not concentrating all development in a specific area or resulting in an over reliance on large strategic sites. 7.2 While a range of development scenarios are outlined, the Council should not rely on one strategy, a combination is required to ensure a sound plan. This should allow appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages, in particular, if development meets a particular local business or community need as set out within Para. 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under Para. 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 7.3 Land west of High Street Fowlmere is considered a suitable location for a village extension. It will help support the local services of the village and importantly, the villages near it, to grow and thrive.
No uploaded files for public display
4.60 We believe there should be a “somewhat flexible” approach to development on the edges of the village. The Villages have tight boundaries that have restricted development irrespective of the sustainability of the settlement and the contribution the land makes to the wider village itself. The lines are often drawn in an arbitrary manner without regard to the relationships and contribution a particular piece of and may make to the area as a whole. 4.61 We believe the current planning policy is also over restrictive and limits the amount of development on a site. In relation to housing, the number of units is controlled but this impacts the potential mix that could be provided on a site and restricts diversity of supply within a village. This should be encapsulated in relation to design and the character of an area and considered on an individual basis. A more flexible approach for mixed use development villages with a sustainable location should be allowed. Is there are particular approach you would like the plan to take for your village? 4.62 The development framework boundary for Meldreth and Melbourn are tightly drawn around the existing built up area, (see inset maps 76 and 77 of the adopted Local Plan). Whilst separate settlements, the two villages have a number of linkages that lead to the settlements operating together. There is employment in both villages with Melbourn having a higher level of employment and services but arguably Meldreth has more sustainable transport options with the railway. Melbourn also provides the secondary school. The current local plan differentiates the two villages in relation to the settlement hierarchy with Meldreth at a lower classification despite the main line railway station. We believe the villages should be considered jointly at the higher end of sustainable villages due to the provision and services that are available. In our view this is justified on the physical proximity of the villages, the existing connectivity with the potential to further improve the pedestrian and cycle connectivity between the two.
No uploaded files for public display
4.59 We believe there should be a “somewhat flexible” approach to development on the edges of the village. The Villages have tight boundaries that have restricted development irrespective of the sustainability of the settlement and the contribution the land makes to the wider village itself. The lines are often drawn in an arbitrary manner without regard to the relationships and contribution a particular piece of and may make to the area as a whole. 4.60 We believe the current planning policy is also over restrictive and limits the amount of development on a site. In relation to housing, the number of units is controlled but this impacts the potential mix that could be provided on a site and restricts diversity of supply within a village. This should be encapsulated in relation to design and the character of an area and considered on an individual basis. A more flexible approach for mixed use development villages with a sustainable location should be allowed. Is there are particular approach you would like the plan to take for your village? 4.61 The development framework boundary for Meldreth and Melbourn are tightly drawn around the existing built up area, (see inset maps 76 and 77 of the adopted Local Plan). Whilst separate settlements, the two villages have a number of linkages that lead to the settlements operating together. There is employment in both villages with Melbourn having a higher level of employment and services but arguably Meldreth has more sustainable transport options with the railway. Melbourn also provides the secondary school. The current local plan differentiates the two villages in relation to the settlement hierarchy with Meldreth at a lower classification despite the main line railway station. We believe the villages should be considered jointly at the higher end of sustainable villages due to the provision and services that are available. In our view this is justified on the physical proximity of the villages, the existing connectivity with the potential to further improve the pedestrian and cycle connectivity between the two.
No uploaded files for public display
As part of a hybrid approach to the distribution of new development, the new Local Plan should provide greater flexibility in allowing villages to grow to ensure their future vitality and viability, especially for those villages outside of the Cambridge Green Belt. This is essential in supporting a prosperous rural economy. This approach accords with Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, which states that: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” The current settlement envelopes for villages, such as Guilden Morden, are so tightly drawn around the existing built-form that there is little room for villages to grow and thrive. Greater consideration needs to be given in identifying suitable land within and adjacent the village boundaries to accommodate sustainable growth, especially in non-Green Belt locations. New development which could enhance the sustainability of the community, through the provision of additional footfall and potential for new community facilities, amenities, transport improvements to be delivered alongside housing to provide a betterment to the wider community, would contribute to a sound and sustainable spatial strategy for the new Local Plan. Summary of Comments: The new Local Plan should provide greater flexibility in allowing villages to grow to ensure their future vitality and viability, especially for those villages outside of the Cambridge Green Belt. This is essential in supporting a prosperous rural economy
No uploaded files for public display
It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004; although sites were allocated within and on the edge of some villages in the Site Specific Allocations DPD in 2010 and for the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages to accommodate additional development; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the current site size threshold limits in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 are largely irrelevant and ineffective e.g. there are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing framework boundaries in Group Villages, and Foxton is an example where there are few opportunities within the boundary. In any event, there are numerous examples between 2014 and 2019 when planning applications were approved and appeals were allowed on sites within and on the edge of settlements that were contrary to the existing site size threshold limits. Therefore, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages, in conjunction with a general policy that supports development within existing framework boundaries but without specifying any size limits. This suggested approach would ensure that sufficient land is allocated for development at villages to support services and facilities and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and would provide some flexibility about development within village boundaries so that the form and scale of development reflects site specific characteristics.
No uploaded files for public display
The acknowledgment of the important role that villages play is strongly welcomed. It is critical that villages are provide with opportunities to grow in a sustainable way to meet the significant growth needs of the plan area and to promote a prosperous rural economy. As stated within the Issues and Options document at paragraph 5.2.5, the currently adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets a development framework for each village, outside which development is heavily restricted. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised dependant on their ‘sustainability’. Bassingbourn is identified in the current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan as a Minor Rural Centre (Policy S/9). This is the second tier in the settlement hierarchy below Rural Centres (Policy S/8). Minor Rural Centres are described as ‘having a lower level of services, facilities, and employment than Rural Centres, but a greater level than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire, and often perform a role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland’. Bassingbourn is not in the Green Belt unlike many of the Rural Centres and is very close to Royston. The current policy (Policy S/9) permits ‘Residential development and redevelopment up to an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings…within the development frameworks of Minor Rural Centres’. While the Rural Centres are more appropriately unlimited, our clients site would be below the 30 unit threshold, although currently outside the development framework. Kneesworth, is however currently classified in its own right as an Infill Village (Policy S/11) where schemes are generally restricted to not more than two dwellings. This policy approach is considered to be unduly restrictive and the new Local Plan should allow for a greater level of development in sustainable locations. However, if the new local plan does retain a similar settlement hierarchy, then Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth should be reclassified as one settlement in a similar way that Great Shelford & Stapleford is and also Histon & Impington are. We encourage the next Local Plan to re-examine the approach currently taken to village growth and explore the re-grouping of village categories and flexibility on the scale of development within and beyond newer more specific village groups. It is clear that all the villages vary significantly in terms of the services provided. However, the scale of growth required, and in particular small sites of 1 Ha or less, means that there will need to be a significant number of small and medium sized sites allocated across all of the settlements in the rural area. Summary of Comments: The new Plan should be highly flexible towards development of jobs/homes on the edge of villages to be able support the significant development needs.
No uploaded files for public display