A key aim of the Sustainability Appraisal process is to make a plan more sustainable. It tests the social, economic, and environmental impacts of various plan options, to help choose the most sustainable options. It also seeks to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development are integrated into the plan and its policies.

It is considered by Cambridge District Oddfellows that the Sustainability Appraisal has not sought to make emerging GCLP more sustainable, and in respect of villages it appears that the assessment against sustainability objectives is not robust because it does not critically review the evidence provided by the Councils. For example, some villages have good access by sustainable modes of transport and contain a good range of services and facilities, there is an identified need for affordable housing in most villages which is ignored in the assessment process, and there is limited capacity within existing settlement boundaries for villages to accommodate additional development.

The sustainability objectives that are relevant to the Cambridge District Oddfellows representations are: SA1 Housing; and, SA2 Access to Services and Facilities.

The Cambridge District Oddfellows representations and requested amendment to the assessment of policy options in the Sustainability Appraisal are as follows:

• Table 5.5: Policy S/SH: Settlement Hierarchy. It is claimed that the preferred option for the settlement hierarchy would deliver sustainable patterns of development. A ‘significant positive effect’ score is identified for the housing sustainability objective (SA1) and the access to services and facilities sustainability objective (SA2). As set out in the Cambridge District Oddfellows representations to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy and Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area, there are no housing allocations made in most villages, including Cottenham, and as such there cannot be significant positive effect for those villages in the settlement hierarchy where no additional housing or affordable housing is planned during the plan period to 2041. It is not clear how the decision to reclassify Cottenham as a Minor Rural Centre has been taken into account in the assessment for Policy S/SH because it is not mentioned. Cottenham 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, primary school and secondary school, village hall and meeting spaces. There is a currently a good bus service from Cottenham, which is due to be improved with more frequent services and better connections as part of Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project. Therefore, Cottenham as a Rural Centre and as location for additional development would have positive effects for the accessibility to services sustainability objective, but the decision to reclassify the village as a Minor Rural Centre and not make any allocations cannot have the same positive effect. The decision to reclassify Cottenham as a Minor Rural Centre is not supported by any evidence and has not been informed by any assessment against sustainability objectives.
• Table 5.22: Policy S/RRA: Allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area: A ‘mixed significant positive and minor negative effect’ score is identified for the housing sustainability objective (SA1). A ‘mixed significant negative and minor positive effect’ score is identified for access to services and facilities objective (SA2). As set out in the Cambridge District Oddfellows representations to Policy S/RRA, it is acknowledged that most of the current need for affordable housing would be met by recent planning permissions, but there will be future affordable housing needs that arise in the future and sustainable villages such as Cottenham should seek to meet district-wide affordable housing needs too. It appears that the Cottenham Community Land Trust is having difficulty bringing forward a scheme because no site is available or identified. It must be a negative outcome for the housing related sustainability objective if future affordable housing needs of the district and villages, including Cottenham, will not be met by the development strategy or the strategy for rural areas. As set out above, Cottenham contains a good range of services and facilities and bus services that due to be improved, reflecting its current status as a Rural Centre. The accessibility to services and facilities is good for Cottenham, but this is not reflected in the assessment for this sustainability related objective, and additional development in this village would improve the sustainability outcomes and support the existing services and facilities.

It is requested that land at Two Mill Field and land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham are allocated in emerging GCLP to deliver better and more positive sustainability outcomes compared with the preferred development strategy.