The evidence document supporting this policy: ‘Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (2021)’ maps the current Green Belt designations within Sawston under SAP2 and includes the land adjacent Spring House, Church Lane, Sawston within the Green Belt boundary (the land in question is shown on the attached Site Location Plan). Part of the land has been assessed as an ‘absolute constraint’ due to the land falling within the Registered Park and Garden of Sawston Hall. However, this land is not part of Sawston Hall and therefore the Registered Park and Garden and as such should not be included as an absolute constraint. Please find attached documentation which provides evidence of the ownership of this land and conclusively demonstrates that this should not be shown as part of the grounds of Sawston Hall. Historically the land was intended to be a sewage treatment plant (please find attached documentation which provides evidence of this); this was never implemented however nevertheless it further demonstrates that the site is not, nor has ever been part of the setting of Sawston Hall.

The anomaly is further demonstrated by the way the boundary of the Green Belt currently cuts through part of the site within our client’s ownership (as shown on the attached Site Location Plan) which demonstrates that historically there has been an error in terms of the mapping of the boundary.

The site in question has been subject to a previous application and subsequent appeal for the development of a single dwelling. There are some important points to note from the appeal decision in relation to the site’s designation as part of the Green Belt. The Inspector states that:

“The appellant has advanced a case that the site does not fulfil a role in preventing encroachment of the countryside or neighbouring towns merging. This is also touched upon by the Council in their committee report where it is stated that the site may not serve the purposes of including land within the Green Belt”.

"Notwithstanding that, paragraph 83 of the Framework states that the Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Therefore, until such a review is undertaken the site is located in the Green Belt and the effects of any development must be considered in line with the Development Plan policy and the Framework.”

As the land is currently designated as Green Belt the Inspector has to consider it as such, though reference is made to the Council’s statement that the site does not serve the purposes of the Greenbelt. Through this current Green Belt review the Council should amend the boundary of the Green Belt to correctly reflect where the openness begins and where the built up area should finish to amended this anomaly and allow this plot of land to come forward as an infill plot for a self-build opportunity.

The National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 138 states that the Green Belt serves 5 purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
This site’s designations within the Green Belt does not fulfil any of the 5 purposes as stated above, for the following reasons:

1. The site represents limited infilling and therefore its designation does not ‘check urban sprawl’ or ‘safeguard the countryside from encroachment.’ In the appeal decision in relation to the previous application, as referenced above, the Inspector refers to the assessment of the plot as infill by the Council: “I am conscious that the Council have stated that, without other planning constraints, the site would be suitable as an infill plot. It is also noted that the Council have concluded that the development would result in limited harm. In this respect, I agree with the Council that only limited harm would result in the character and appearance of the area from the proposed development as a result of the erosion of the countryside”

2. The site does not preserve the setting and special character of a heritage asset. The potential impact from development of the site upon the setting of Sawston Hall and its gardens have been assessed as ‘very limited’ by the Inspector in the appeal decision of the previous application. The Inspector stated: “The principal heritage concern relates to the setting of Sawston Hall and the historic park. The Hall itself is not visible from the appeal site and is somewhat divorced from it. This, together with the existing residential development on either side of the appeal site, means that the harm which would arise from the development to the setting of the Hall and its gardens is very limited”.

3. Given the location of the site, its Green Belt designation does not prevent neighbouring towns merging nor does it assist urban regeneration. The plot is an infill plot leftover after the residential development along St Marys Road and its development would ‘round’ off the settlement edge.

In summary, the land adjacent Spring House, Church Lane, Sawston should be allowed to come forward as an infill residential plot for a self-build opportunity. The Green Belt boundary should therefore be amended as per the attached plan. Our client has received full support from the Parish Council in relation to this matter (as demonstrated through the attached email). The review of the Local Plan provides the opportunity to address this anomaly which has historically been recorded incorrectly.