Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 60365

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: H. J. Molton Settlement

Agent: Cheffins

Representation Summary:

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. A more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
It is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. The sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm. Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal.
For Group Villages, the current strategy to restrict developments within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet needs. As a result, the affordability crisis will deepen in the rural area.
A carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.

Full text:

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. To ensure that local housing needs can be fulfilled and prevent any further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the 'open countryside'. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Although sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm (e.g. Whittlesford). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality development with extensive landscaping that would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
Overall, a carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.