Sustainability Appraisal

The site was assessed in the SA against a series of sustainability objectives and compared against other reasonable alternative site options – see Table 4.21 in SA. In summary, the site scores well against sustainability objectives and when compared against alternative site options. There are three sustainability objectives where negative effects are identified, which are as follows: access to services and facilities; efficient use of land; and mineral resources. In summary, the access to services score appears incorrect when Great Shelford and Stapleford are classified as Rural Centres and contain a good range of services and facilities. The efficient use of land score is partly derived from the quantum of development included in the preferred allocation. The mineral resources issue will need to be assessed, but it is unlikely that the site would be suitable for mineral extraction because of the close proximity of residential areas.

Mrs Johnson’s comments on the findings of the SA for Site Ref: OS216 / Policy S/RSC/HW are as follows:

• SA Objective 1: Housing – A minor positive effect is identified. There is an identified need for affordable housing in Stapleford and Great Shelford for those with a local connection to the villages. The promoted development would deliver housing and affordable housing.
• SA Objective 2: Access to Services and Facilities – A significant negative effect/minor negative effect is identified. Stapleford and Great Shelford are classified as a Rural Centre in the settlement hierarchy. They contain a variety of convenience stores, a post office, library, primary schools, health services including doctors and dentist, banks, public houses, and restaurants. Shelford Station is located close to the site. There are bus routes on Hinton Way, Mingle Lane, Station Road and Cambridge Road, all of which are close to the site. There are cycle routes through Stapleford and Great Shelford into Cambridge. It is requested that the score is changed to ‘significant positive effect likely’
• SA Objective 3: Social Inclusion and Equalities – A negligible effect is identified. No comments.
• SA Objective 4: Health – A Minor positive effect/negligible effect is identified. No comments.
• SA Objective 5: Biodiversity and Geodiversity – A minor negative effect is identified. An ecological assessment would need to be undertaken. The existing trees and hedgerows at the site boundary would be retained. The promoted development would retain any ecological interest on the site and deliver ecological enhancements and green infrastructure.
• SA Objective 6: Landscape and Townscape. A negligible effect is identified. A landscape and visual impact assessment would need to be undertaken. The promoted development would include strategic landscaping on the northern and eastern boundaries and the setting back of dwellings from the village edge to address landscape and visual impacts. The route for the Cambridge South East Transport project, located to the north east of the site, should be taken into account in the assessment. The promoted development would also include other landscaping, green infrastructure and open space that would assist with landscape and visual impacts.
• SA Objective 7: Historic Environment: A minor negative effect is identified. The access to the site is within Stapleford Conservation Area. The Church of St Andrew (Grade II*) is located to the south east of the site. An assessment of the impact of development at the site on these heritage assets will need to be undertaken. It would be possible to avoid harm to the setting of these heritage assets by careful design and layout and providing open space on the eastern boundary of the site. An archaeological assessment will need to be undertaken to determine whether any archaeological assets exist on site, and what if any mitigation measures are required to protect those assets.
• SA Objective 8: Efficient Use of Land – A significant negative effect is identified. The quantum of development is limited by the availability of a single point of access to the site. The promoted development will need to include strategic landscaping, open space, and other green infrastructure, and it is likely that once these factors have been incorporated into the design and layout that land available for built development would be brought forward at suitable densities appropriate to the village.
• SA Objective 9: Minerals: A significant negative effect likely identified. An assessment of the mineral resource at the site will need to be undertaken to determine whether mineral extraction is a realistic and viable option. It is unlikely that the site would be suitable for mineral extraction because of the close proximity of residential areas, and the need for substantial buffers to be provided at mineral extraction sites to protect residential amenity.
• SA Objective 10: Water – A negligible effect identified. The promoted development would need to meet water conservation standards.
• SA Objective 11: Adaptation to Climate Change – A minor negative effect identified. The promoted development would need to meet climate change adaptation requirements.
• SA Objective 12: Climate Change Mitigation – A significant positive effect/minor positive effect identified. The promoted development would need to incorporate climate change mitigation measures.
• SA Objective 13: Air Quality – A minor negative effect is identified. The promoted development is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, and there are realistic alternatives to the car for most journeys from the site to reduce potential increases in traffic and associated impacts on air quality. The phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles and the requirement for new residential developments to include electric vehicle charging points should help to improve air quality.
• SA Objective 14: Economy – A negligible effect is identified. No comments.
• SA Objective 15: Employment – A minor positive effect is identified. No comments

It is requested that the above comments are taken into account when the SA is updated.