We disagree with the current amount and distribution of development within the Development Strategy, we believe it does not allow for enough growth and is disproportionate. More growth should be considered and other sustainable corridors such as the South West railway corridor and this should be reviewed in much the same way as the Rural Southern Cluster approach. The area between Melbourn and Cambridge not only benefits from the railway but also is an area which will also take advantage of the GCP Melbourn Greenway project which will help Active Travel choices between settlements and to the nearby railway stations. The amount of development which has been considered appropriate in this location seems inconsistent with the vision and aims set out for the area.
The Development Strategy also does not accord with the NPPF paragraph 69 a) which requests that all Local Plans have at least 10% of their overall housing target ‘identified’ on sites of less than 1 ha. We understand that the First Proposals document states that existing commitments and windfall developments within the area already result in this figure being achieved, but the NPPF is clear that these sites should be ‘identified’ within the Local Plan. This appears not to have been demonstrated within this document and within the Strategy Topic Paper. Within this evidence base document, the figure quoted at page 45 has included windfall sites as well as sites with planning permission which were not identified as allocations. We believe there are sites included within this figure where planning permission was achieved through a lack of 5-year housing supply at the time and not through allocation in previous plans. We believe Greater Cambridge should identify at least 4,440 homes on allocated smaller sites of less than 1ha and, as a result, more smaller sites need to be identified through this plan making process. We would like to see a further breakdown of the smaller sites and an indication as to whether these are, in fact, identified as allocations in previous plans.
Further Clarification Needed:
The table of proposed housing allocations on page 32 of the First Proposals paper seems unclear as to which sites are proposed allocations and what are existing commitments. For example Cambourne is included within this table but within the commentary for this policy (S/CB) it would appear that these 1,950 homes already have planning permission within the West Cambourne proposal and surely this is therefore an existing commitment?
The proposed allocations within the Rural Southern Cluster are not clear as Duxford (S/RSC MF) and Great Shelford (S/RSC site HW) are included in the table at page 32 but Comfort Café (S/RSC/CC) is excluded. More clarification is required on what actual new allocations are proposed.