REST OF THE RURAL AREA (SECTION 2.6)
(NB See also our discussion above in relation to: ‘Development Strategy / Spatial Distribution’. This is repeated (in part) here due to the manner in which we will need to submit the representations / the way in which they will be considered separately to each other.)

Section 2.6 of the draft Plan opens by stating (page 122): “We want our rural villages to continue to thrive and sustain their local services, but we don’t want to encourage lots of new homes in places where car travel is the easiest or only way to get around. We therefore propose some development in and around villages that have good transport links and services, while in smaller villages, we propose that only small-scale infill development and affordable housing would be permitted. …”

This sounds reasonable, but in reality, only 13 allocations are proposed across the entirety of the rural area. Of these only four new sites are proposed that include housing, totalling 224 new homes – equivalent to just 10 new homes for every year of the plan period. And this notwithstanding that some of these homes are on sites already granted planning permission and that some of the homes have already been completed.

Taking into account that the rural area accommodates 5 Rural Centres, 13 Minor Rural Centres and 33 Group Villages, not to mention 55 Infill Villages, the proposed allocation of only 6 new sites / 384 new homes are figures that can only be described as ‘paltry’ and completely inadequate and incapable of facilitating the achievement the objective set out above. As evidenced by the table on page 32 of the draft plan, this figure equates to just 3.3% of the new housing allocations proposed.

This is directly contrary to national policy in the NPPF, which includes (para. 79):
“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.”
In addition (para. 84): “Planning policies … should enable: … a) the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.”

This national policy is a far more nuanced and sustainable approach than the blunt tool being proposed in the draft Plan. The draft Plan completely fails to recognise that by not allowing rural communities to grow, irrespective of whether they have a full range of services and facilities and ‘very good’ public transport links, it will almost certainly lead to the loss of services and facilities and a reduction in rural sustainability, and thus be contrary to national policy in paragraphs 79 and 84 of the NPPF.

It is considered that the approach taken in the draft Plan to the distribution of development, and the determination of what constitutes a sustainable (broad) location for development and a sustainable site should be reviewed in the context of needing to ensure that rural communities are allowed to “thrive and sustain their local services” as stated.

As identified above in our representations to Section 2.1, two options for a solution to this would be to either: • increase the housing requirement by 1,900 to 4,700 homes as discussed; and/or • not include the ‘additional’ / ‘faster’ delivery of between 1,500 and 2,500 new homes on the edge of Cambridge / at new settlements, and to instead accommodate these homes on sustainable sites in sustainable locations within the rural area.

Summary It is thus evident that:
• The quantum of housing allocated to the rural area is ‘paltry’ and insufficient to enable existing communities to ‘thrive’ and/or ‘grow’.
• National policy advocates a far more nuanced and sustainable approach than the blunt tool being proposed in the draft Plan.
• By failing to recognise that by not allowing rural communities to grow, the draft Plan will lead to the loss of services and facilities and a reduction in rural sustainability, and thus be contrary to national policy in paragraphs 79 and 84 of the NPPF.
• Two options for a solution would be to either: increase the housing requirement by 1,900 to 4,700 homes as discussed; and/or not include the ‘additional’ / ‘faster’ delivery of between 1,500 and 2,500 new homes on the edge of Cambridge / at new settlements, Beechwood Homes Contracting Ltd – Representations to Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals Consultation, 2021 14 and to instead accommodate these homes on sustainable sites in sustainable locations within the rural area.

SUMMARY
Rest of the Rural Area (Section 2.6)
With regard to the Rest of the Rural Area (Section 2.6 of the draft Plan): o The quantum of housing allocated to the rural area is ‘paltry’ and insufficient to enable existing communities to ‘thrive’ and/or ‘grow’.

National policy advocates a far more nuanced and sustainable approach than the blunt tool being proposed in the draft Plan.

By failing to recognise that by not allowing rural communities to grow, the draft Plan will lead to the loss of services and facilities and a reduction in rural sustainability, and thus be contrary to national policy in paragraphs 79 and 84 of the NPPF.

Two options for a solution would be to either: - increase the housing requirement by 1,900 to 4,700 homes as discussed; and/or - not include the ‘additional’ / ‘faster’ delivery of between 1,500 and 2,500 new homes on the edge of Cambridge / at new settlements, and to instead accommodate these homes on sustainable sites in sustainable locations within the rural area.

The site (HELAA ref. 40073) to the south of Chestnut Lane, Kneesworth is a sustainable site in a sustainable location and is suitable, available and achievable