This land is currently within the green belt and has already been considered in the last local plan in 2018 and dismissed as unsuitable. Reasons for this are as follows:
Development of the site is likely to have an adverse effect on the adjoining Conservation Area due to intensification to create a vehicular entrance.
Significant adverse impact on the landscape and townscape of the area, due to considerable encroachment of the built development into the strongly rolling chalk hills rising from the village edge, with a development contrary to the ribbon development character of this part of the village.
There is a great deal of local opposition to development of the site.
The site is not well located to local services and facilities.

There must be exceptional circumstances for release of green belt - what are these?

Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (GCGBA) report states:

The purpose of Green Belt is to "prevent communities merging into one", preserve "landscape that retains a strong rural character", "prevent further coalescence of settlements" and "prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another".
This proposed development lies exactly on the boundary between the parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, and will clearly contribute to the merging of the two villages into one continuous settlement - one of the many reasons why the land was rejected in 2018.

"The more fragile the gap the larger the potential contribution of any intervening open land".
The proposed busway at the top of the neighbouring fields must be considered when assessing this land for suitability, as if the busway is built the value of the intervening fields in distinguishing the edge of the settlements will be further increased. Similarly, were the proposed housing allocation permitted this would weaken the argument for maintaining this boundary of fields.

Please also note that as the previously rejected retirement village on the ‘rolling chalk hills’ has gone to appeal, the case for reversing the prior rejection will only be strengthened if the council advocates building housing in a contiguous field.

There is no mention of either the busway, or the proposed retirement village in the Local Plan report, yet the draft Local Plan discusses both proposals of East-West Rail and the Cambridge South Station.

The impact of development should consider the "degree of activity from the development (e.g. by traffic generation)".
100 houses will contribute a significant increase in traffic (potentially >200 cars), in an already congested area. The houses are very likely to be sold at a premium by the developers with new residents attracted to Cambridge's many private schools which they will access for drop off/pick up by car, further exacerbating the congestion problems in the village.

It is also worth observing that the allocation of 100 houses is insignificant to the full Local Plan at only 0.2% of the 49,000 total planned, and destroying the biodiverse meadow would be even less.