Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58380

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bridgemere Land Plc

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Within the First Proposals, Hauxton is identified as a Group Village, which is the same as adopted policy and puts the settlement towards the bottom of the hierarchy. Bridgemere Land Plc are of the view that there are existing and emerging considerations including facilties, services and infrastructure including sustainable transport improvements which mean Hauxton should be re-assessed and placed higher in the settement hierarchy.,

Full text:

Under this policy the Council set out a settlement hierarchy as follows:

(i) Cambridge
(ii) Town
(iii) Rural Centre
(iv) Minor Rural Centre
(v) Group Village
(vi) Infill Village

This hierarchy is essentially the same as the adopted hierarchy in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018), with the addition of Cambridge and Town to recognise the bringing together of the two authorities for planning purposes.

Within the First Proposals, Hauxton is identified as a Group Village, which is again the same as adopted policy. Notwithstanding the existing and forthcoming transport links, this suggests that Hauxton is towards the bottom of the hierarchy.

Hauxton benefits from a number of services and facilities commensurate with a village of its size. These include a pre-school, primary school, places of worship, a community swimming pool, a village hall with an extensive range of classes and sports activities available and recreational facilities including sports pitches and playgrounds.

Within the Council’s Development Strategy Topic Paper (September 2021), an audit of each settlement has been undertaken to inform the location of each settlement within the hierarchy. Bridgemere Land Plc would suggest that this is reviewed, because it identifies that Hauxton does not have a nursery/day care. Hauxton does have a pre-school which provides an important facility for local residents. Furthermore, it is unclear how the provision of a primary school is taken into consideration within the methodology, given that it is not included in Appendix 5, but Appendix 3 of the paper. As such, no points appear to be given to this important facility in the scoring system.

A very important consideration is the proximity of Hauxton to Cambridge. Housing, employment or a mixture in Hauxton would help facilitate a shift away from car use, and certainly reduce any journey times by car. Hauxton is highly accessible and is linked to the edge of Cambridge by footways, which as already outlined are set to be significantly improved for pedestrians and cyclists. Bus services serve the village linking it to Cambridge, along with nearby settlements. The closest railway station is Shelford Station, which is 2.5 miles from Hauxton and offers services to London.

It is highlighted that despite Hauxton’s very close proximity to Cambridge, no sites are proposed for allocation within the village. The Former Waste Water Treatment Works at Hauxton would therefore offer the opportunity for a site that benefits from many sustainable travel opportunities owing to its proximity to Cambridge.