The spatial strategy is urban focused, relying on intensification of existing allocations (North West Cambridge) and accelerated delivery at the new settlements of Northstowe and Waterbeach. In total, this accelerated delivery and intensification is expected to deliver 2,500 new homes over the Plan period. It is unclear how this approach can significantly boost the supply of homes (as sought in Government policy). At this stage there is no evidence to support delivery rates can be sustained in these locations at this level.

As advised at para 73 (d) NPPF 2021, strategic policy-making authorities should make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites. Without further justification for the densification and acceleration of key schemes within the development strategy the housing delivery element of the Plan would be unsound.

The conclusion must be that further sites need to be allocated for housing to ensure the required annualised supply of housing of 2,326 homes can be achieved.

The strategy places little emphasis on existing villages to support the spatial strategy, particularly during the early years of the plan when these large sites are more likely to be prone to delays and slippage in the anticipated trajectory rates.

The plan should identify additional smaller sites that are capable of delivering homes over a 1-2 year period to help accelerate growth and provide greater certainty around housing supply over the plan period and beyond

This would also ensure that the plan allows choice and opportunities for smaller developers and housebuilders

Introducing further land supply at the most sustainable villages will not risk creating a dispersed strategy for growth, provided such sites are located in villages which already benefit form established supporting transport and social infrastructure and/or where other facilities outside but accessible to the village are readily available.

Great Shelford is one of those settlements where it is benefits from being one of the most sustainably located villages due to its relationship with Cambridge City. It has the clear advantage of having key infrastructure within the village but is also accessible to the wider facilities on offer in Cambridge.

Development at Great Shelford already forms part of the First Proposals Strategy. This principle is agreed and supported. It is appropriate to consider GB release in exceptional circumstances and the village is a strong candidate for accepting more growth. However, the choice of site is not substantiated by the evidence base. We comment on the proposed site allocation in the relevant section S/RRA.

Great Shelford is an appropriate location for growth and this should be maintained in the draft GCLP going forward. Should additional land be required, it remains a suitable place to accommodate more housing to 2041.

In summary, the draft development strategy does not currently reflect a robust spatial strategy that is capable of delivering the stated growth levels during the plan period. The evidence does not clearly show demonstrate that the trajectory assumptions are realistic. Some additional sites will be required to maintain flexibility and Great Shelford is better placed to accommodate additional growth without prejudicing the overall spatial objectives.