S/SH: Settlement hierarchy

Given the proximity to Cambourne, Caxton should have no limit on the scale of individual developments as it lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire given the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc.

Given the proximity to Cambourne, Caxton should have no limit on the scale of individual developments as it lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire given the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc.

Given the proximity to Cambourne, Caxton should have no limit on the scale of individual developments as it lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire given the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc.

Given the proximity to Cambourne, Caxton should have no limit on the scale of individual developments as it lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire given the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc.

Support the continuation of a threshold of 30 units of housing developments in minor rural centres.

We support the policy, in particular, in relation to Infill Villages.

1. These representations are made on behalf of Mr K.B. Tebbit Ltd and relate to the promotion of HELAA sites Ref: 40383 – Land north east of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell and Ref: 40378 – Land to the south west of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell.

2. Orwell is located to the southwest of Cambridge within South Cambridgeshire. Adopted Policy S/8 of the adopted Local Plan (2018) identifies Orwell as a Group Village, this classification is to be carried forward through the GCLP. Group Villages are classed as the fourth most sustainable settlement type in the proposed GCLP Settlement Hierarchy behind Cambridge city, Towns, Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres.

3. In the period 2015-2018 there has been a vast number of appeal decisions and decisions at a local level which has confirmed that Group Villages are capable of accommodating housing growth by virtue of their service provision and status in the settlement hierarchy.

4. Orwell village has access to a number of facilities enabling residents to access services for their day-to-day needs. The appeal decision associated with outline planning permission for 49 dwellings appeal scheme at Hurdleditch Road, Orwell concurs with our assessment in respect of Orwell being capable of supporting housing growth (of a similar scale put forward via this Call for Sites exercise). The Inspector concluded that future residents of the appeal scheme would be located closely to existing local facilities and services providing for some day to day needs of residents and that there was the opportunity for some journeys to be made by public transport to facilities and services located further afield.

5. Attached as a separate sheet is a detailed overview of the shops, services and transport links which would serve residents. Tables 1-3 (see attachment) also provide an approximate distance and travel time to each of the services from the land which is being promoted for residential development by our client.

7. In light of Tables 1-3 (see attachment) it is clear Orwell possesses a range of shops and services which can be reached via sustainable modes of transport. The village is served by a direct bus link to Cambridge which has services at peak times to allow a commute to and from the city centre (Monday – Saturday). Orwell also benefits from quick and convenient access to rail and park & ride connections which provide links to major centres.

8. Orwell is an established sustainable settlement capable of accommodating proportionate levels of new housing growth to assist in preparation of a balanced and varied housing supply which in turn will support the economic growth of Greater Cambridge.

This policy states that windfall proposals for residential development coming through planning applications within rural centres will not be subject to any limits on individual scheme size. This policy should be amended to place limits on the size of such individual schemes in line with those specified in any duly adopted Neighbourhood Plan for the rural centre in question.

We support both the principle of settlement hierarchy both in principle and in the changes proposed, on the grounds of sustainability. However indicative maximum scheme sizes should include business premises (perhaps on a floor area basis) as well as housing.

Teversham is identified as a Group Village, which is the same as adopted policy. Teversham however benefits from a number of services and facilities commensurate with a village of its size. A very important consideration is also the proximity of Teversham to Cambridge. Development in Teversham would help facilitate a shift away from car use, and certainly reduce any journey times by car. Despite Teversham’s very close proximity to Cambridge, no sites are proposed for allocation within the village.

West Wickham Parish Council supports the infill village designation for West Wickham and Streetly End and the indicative maximum scheme size.

(Education) The Council appreciates the wish to raise Babraham to a ‘Group Village’ as it has a primary school consistent with infrastructure in other Group Villages. The school is currently full to its capacity of 0.5FE/84 places and operates with four classes (it operates a Published Admission Number (PAN) of 12). The school’s site and context mean that it has previously been determined that there is no scope for significant expansion beyond its current size.

Some children currently attend from within Sawston catchment, so displacement of places back to Sawston should be borne in mind with development at Babraham.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages including at Meldreth.

OBJECT

Hastingwood Developments is promoting land at Bury End Farm off North End in Meldreth for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Meldreth is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and Hastingwood Developments agree with the status of the village. The village contains a good range of services and facilities, including a primary school and special education needs school, convenience store, and public house. There are additional services in Melbourn, including a secondary school. There is a train station at Meldreth, which is within walking and cycling distance of the Bury End Farm site, provides services to Cambridge and London. Meldreth is also on a bus route with services to Royston. It is considered that Meldreth is a suitable and sustainable location for additional residential development, with sustainable modes of transport available within the village providing an alternative to the car for some journeys including for employment.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity within the settlement boundaries of most villages. There are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing settlement boundaries in Group Villages, and Meldreth is an example where there are no opportunities within the boundary for sites of 8 dwellings or more. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required e.g. less than 10 dwellings.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages including at Meldreth.

Seems sensible.

Policy S/SH – Settlement Hierarchy

The village of Melbourn has been identified within the emerging Settlement Hierarchy as a Minor Rural Centre with the adjoining village of Meldreth identified as Group Village. Melbourn was allocated as a Minor Rural Centre in the previously adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

There is however a strong sustainability argument that these villages, which have both grown in population over recent years to around 5000 residents, should be considered jointly as a Rural Centre designation in the new Settlement Hierarchy given the expanding population and level of services and transport links the villages enjoy.
Melbourn & Meldreth (M&M) represent an unconstrained sustainable location for growth of both housing and employment development within and the largest village in the Southwest area of the district. The village has grown over recent years following the delivery of a number of residential schemes in both villages with further growth identified though two new housing allocations in the emerging Local Plan. Melbourn in particular already enjoys a good level of employment development including the Melbourn Science Park.
Villages services include:

• Shops including Coop; Butchers; Farm Shop; Pubs; Post Office
• Melbourn Village College (Secondary Education);
• Melbourn Primary School;
• Melbourn Science Park;
• Saxon Way Business Park;
• Doctors Surgery & Health Centre;
• Library;
• Sports Centre

The level of services is generally greater than many of the other the other Minor Rural Centres identified in the emerging Settlement Hierarchy and equal too or greater than those of other Rural Centre's of a similar population.
Public Transport

M&M benefit from some of the best levels of access to public transport in the whole district which appears to have been overlooked through the emerging plan process

M&M are served by the Guided Bus and National Rail services which include:

• Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Route A between Royston, Cambridge and St Ives. This service provides connections to Cambridge City Centre, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambridge Science Park. Services run every hour Monday – Saturday daytimes, via Royston Road.
• Thameslink railway services between Cambridge and London King’s Cross. This service was upgraded in 2018 and now operates every half hour during weekdays, every hour at weekends. The service operates from Meldreth railway station, where passenger numbers are increasing.
Cambridge Greenways

Access to district wide cycle links is also available in Melbourn. The Greater Cambridge Partnership is currently working to deliver a network of ‘Greenways’ linking Cambridge with surrounding towns and villages. These are intended to form high quality cycle and walking routes, replicating the success of existing routes such as the cycleway alongside the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Funding has been allocated to deliver a Greenway between Cambridge and Melbourn; the northern part of this between Harston and Foxton has been completed.
Settlement Hierarchy

The proposed settlement hierarchy identifies five allocated Rural Centres in the district and includes two other locations which combine closely related villages; Histon & Impington and Great Shelford & Stapleford.
In particular M&M are very similar in scale to Great Shelford & Stapleford and share a similar level of services. Whilst M&M are further from the urban area of Cambridge, they do benefit from excellent transport links including a rail link into central Cambridge from Meldreth with a 20-minute travelling time and a direct link into London Kings Cross in just over an hour. There is also direct access to the guided bus into central Cambridge which stops on the high street every hour

M&M have a level of services and transport links which generally matches and, in some cases, exceed those found in the other identified Rural Centres. None of the other Minor Rural centres have this level of public transport accessibility or are they located on a primary transport route (A10).

A further advantage of identifying M&M as a Rural Centre is that it is not constrained by the green belt. This will allow both housing and employment growth to come forward without the loss of green belt land whereas three of the other Rural Centres are all constrained by the green belt requiring special circumstances to be identified for any edge of settlement developments. Melbourn in particular is capable of delivering development of a scale which exceeds the proposed 30 dwellings windfall limit for proposed for Minor Rural Centre and has land fronting on to the A10 and which is well suited to employment development without green belt restrictions.

OBJECT
CEMEX is promoting land west of Malton Road in Orwell for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Orwell is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and CEMEX agree with the status of the village. Orwell contains a primary school, village store including a post office, a public house, a hairdresser, a village hall, church hall, recreation facilities and a mobile library service. There is a currently a limited bus service to Cambridge, but it noted that the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes a more frequent rural bus service including for Orwell. There is a train station at Shepreth. It is considered that Orwell is a suitable and sustainable location for additional residential development, with sustainable modes of transport available within the village providing an alternative to the car for some journeys including for employment.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity within the settlement boundaries of most villages. There are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing settlement boundaries in Group Villages, and Orwell is an example where there are no opportunities within the boundary for sites of 8 dwellings or more. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required e.g. less than 10 dwellings.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages including at Orwell.

OBJECT

The Elbourn Family is promoting land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth for residential development, and in these representations is requesting that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Meldreth is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and the Elbourn Family agree with the status of the village. The village contains a good range of services and facilities, including a primary school and special education needs school, convenience store, and public house. There are additional services in Melbourn, including a secondary school. There is a train station at Meldreth, which is within walking and cycling distance of the Fenny Lane site, providing services to Cambridge and London. Meldreth is also on a bus route with services to Royston. It is considered that Meldreth is a suitable and sustainable location for additional residential development, with sustainable modes of transport available within the village providing an alternative to the car for some journeys including for employment.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity within the settlement boundaries of most villages. There are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing settlement boundaries in Group Villages, and Meldreth is an example where there are no opportunities within the boundary for sites of 8 dwellings or more. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required e.g. less than 10 dwellings.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages including at Meldreth.

1.0 Statement
1.1 The detail of the case for this representation is provided in the objection to the Settlement Boundary for Linton representation by Impact Planning Services Limited on behalf of our clients Abbey Developments Limited.
1.2 The Policy S/SH Settlement Hierarchy on page 47, under the sub heading: Proposed policy direction, in the second paragraph below this sub heading the fourth bullet point restricts ‘Minor Rural Centres’, such as Linton to an ‘indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings’.
1.3 This is not explained and more importantly unjustified. It should have this bullet point removed. It will contradict the NPPF which under the heading ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’, in paragraphs 60,69,73 and 79 the emphasis is on significantly boosting the supply of new homes. An unjustified restriction as currently drafted would severely limit the provision of much needed new housing in an area where the economy is strong and expected to continue to grow into the future.
1.4 No evidence has been published to justify such an approach.

OBJECT

RO Group is promoting land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Great Chishill is defined as an Infill Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire which is appropriate based on the services and facilities available in the village.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity within the settlement boundaries of most villages. There are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 2 dwellings within existing settlement boundaries in Infill Villages, and sites of this size are not required to provide affordable housing. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required e.g. less than 10 dwellings. The site promoted by RO Group at land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill represents an infill site located outside the settlement boundary that could accommodate approximately 21 dwellings including policy compliant levels of affordable housing.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing villages to ensure affordable housing needs are met including at Great Chishill.

OBJECT

It is proposed in Policy S/SH that Cottenham should be reclassified as Minor Rural Centre. The reason for this reclassification is because Cottenham does not have a high quality public transport in the form of a segregated transport route i.e. access to a Greater Cambridge Partnership scheme or the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Cambridge District Oddfellows object to the reclassification of Cottenham when the village has all of the other attributes of a Rural Centre, and the existing bus services are good and the Greater Cambridge Partnership is bringing forward a project to improve the services and connections.

Cottenham has a good range of services and facilities including a supermarket and convenience stores, post office, doctors surgeries, dentist, library, public houses, restaurant/takeaway, bank, primary school and secondary school, village hall and meeting spaces. Cottenham is currently connected to Cambridge by frequent bus services. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway stop at Oakington is approximately 3.5km from the centre of Cottenham. The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes substantial improvements to the bus services for Cottenham, including a bus every 10 minutes to Cambridge via Histon, a more frequent service to Oakington (including the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway stop), and a more frequent rural service to Chatteris via Wilburton, Haddenham, Sutton and Mepal. It is acknowledged that the public transport routes from Cottenham are not segregated, but the current bus service is good and the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project will improve the quality of the bus services from the village including connections to the Cambridge Guided Busway at Oakington. The Making Connections project has not been taken into account in the decision to reclassify Cottenham in the settlement hierarchy. The frequency of the bus services from Cottenham to Cambridge would be equivalent to those on a segregated bus route. For all these reasons, Cottenham should remain as a Rural Centre.

Requested Change

It is requested that the status of Cottenham in the settlement hierarchy is not altered, and it remains as a Rural Centre.

Objection is raised to the proposed changes to the settlement hierarchy as set out in the emerging Policy S/SH. Whilst Waterbeach new town is proposed to be included within the ‘Towns’ category the Plan does not make it clear whether the existing settlement of Waterbeach will also be included within this category. It is considered inappropriate and ineffective to identify just the ‘new town’ element of Waterbeach within this category in the settlement hierarchy the plan should make clear that the existing settlement will also be defined as a ‘Town’. Within the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 Waterbeach is identified as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ this is now considered an inappropriate category for a settlement that has experienced such large growth to the north. This is particularly pertinent given the sustainable pedestrian and green links from the settlement to the new town and the linked trips associated with the facilities and services between the two areas.
Objection is also raised to the re-categorisation of Cottenham from a ‘Rural Centre’ to a ‘Minor Rural Centre’. The justification within the First proposals Local Plan states that this reflects the revision to the criteria for Rural Centres to have high quality public transport in the form of a segregated public transport route such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes or the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. It is considered that this should not be the only consideration in respect of categorising settlements within the hierarchy indeed other considerations including the size and levels of services and facilities afforded to a settlement should be a major and primary factor. Given the size of Cottenham, its population, the fact it has a good level of services and facilities afforded to it including a Primary School, GP surgery, pharmacy, library, Post Office, dentist, ATM/bank, community facility, public house and good level of shops and services the proposed re-categorisation to a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ is not appropriate. It is instead considered that more funding should be provided to the bus service in Cottenham and the increase in home-working and less reliance on travel for work should be a consideration in categorising settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy.
The First Proposals Local Plan identifies that within Rural Centres there is no limit on an individual scheme size but within Minor Rural centres there will be an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings. Both the existing settlement of Waterbeach and the village of Cottenham are capable of providing larger schemes of more than 30 dwellings given the sustainability credentials afforded to them.

Objection is raised to the proposed changes to the settlement hierarchy as set out in the emerging Policy S/SH. Whilst Waterbeach new town is proposed to be included within the ‘Towns’ category the Plan does not make it clear whether the existing settlement of Waterbeach will also be included within this category. It is considered inappropriate and ineffective to identify just the ‘new town’ element of Waterbeach within this category in the settlement hierarchy the plan should make clear that the existing settlement will also be defined as a ‘Town’. Within the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 Waterbeach is identified as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ this is now considered an inappropriate category for a settlement that has experienced such large growth to the north. This is particularly pertinent given the sustainable pedestrian and green links from the settlement to the new town and the linked trips associated with the facilities and services between the two areas.
Objection is also raised to the re-categorisation of Cottenham from a ‘Rural Centre’ to a ‘Minor Rural Centre’. The justification within the First proposals Local Plan states that this reflects the revision to the criteria for Rural Centres to have high quality public transport in the form of a segregated public transport route such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes or the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. It is considered that this should not be the only consideration in respect of categorising settlements within the hierarchy indeed other considerations including the size and levels of services and facilities afforded to a settlement should be a major and primary factor. Given the size of Cottenham, its population, the fact it has a good level of services and facilities afforded to it including a Primary School, GP surgery, pharmacy, library, Post Office, dentist, ATM/bank, community facility, public house and good level of shops and services the proposed re-categorisation to a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ is not appropriate. It is instead considered that more funding should be provided to the bus service in Cottenham and the increase in home-working and less reliance on travel for work should be a consideration in categorising settlements within the Settlement Hierarchy.
The First Proposals Local Plan identifies that within Rural Centres there is no limit on an individual scheme size but within Minor Rural centres there will be an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings. Both the existing settlement of Waterbeach and the village of Cottenham are capable of providing larger schemes of more than 30 dwellings given the sustainability credentials afforded to them.

MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd’s are promoting land off Lodge Road, Thriplow for residential development, and in our other representations has requested that the site is allocated in the emerging GCLP.

Thriplow is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire. MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd agrees with the status of the village because it contains a good range of services and facilities. While MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd agree that the Settlement Hierarchy needs to have a cascade arrangement which prioritises growth at the most sustainable locations, the emerging policies retention of the standardised dwelling limit of 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) for all Group Villages is considered to be overly simplified and ineffective. If the needs of the local communities are to be satisfied the Settlement Hierarchy needs to be better informed by evidence and where justified, more flexible in its approach.

The inclusion of a dwelling threshold limit within the Settlement Hierarchy implies that there are available sites within the boundaries of Group Villages that can deliver developments of 8 or 15 dwellings. Given the settlement boundaries of most Group Villages have not changed in many years, there is, in reality, many cases where available and suitable sites able to accommodate meaningful development within village boundaries do not exist. Given the GCLP is not seeking to allocated sites within or on the edge of most villages, essential infrastructure such as the delivery of affordable housing is very unlikely to be delivered. The needs of local communities are as a result, unlikely to be met over the plan period.

To ensure the needs of local communities are known, understood, and positively planned for, MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd consider a capacity assessment should be undertaken of all Villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites. If it becomes evident that available and/or suitable sites do not exist within the settlement limits to meet local housing need, that information should be used to inform the need for additional allocations on the edge of the village boundary.

Once that capacity assessment has been undertaken, it is considered that a more flexible approach to the scale of development within Group Villages is then needed. Rather then adopting housing limits that cannot be exceeded, MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd consider that those limits should either be deleted or described as being “indicative limits” that can be exceeded where sustainable development can/will occur, and where justified by site specific/local considerations.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites. That evidence should then be used to identify if additional sites need to be located within or on the edge of villages.

It is also requested that the site size limit for each category of village are either deleted or marked as being indicative so that where opportunities exist to deliver sustainable forms of growth, the policy is sufficiently flexible to enable that to happen.

We act for (text redacted) Site Ref: 40211
1. Little Eversden is a well-connected rural settlement easily accessible to a broad range of services including a very successful secondary school at Comberton. The current adopted Local Plan (2018) identifies Little Eversden as a Infill Village, and this classification is to be carried forward through the GCLP.
2. Little Eversden should be considered for modest scale housing allocations. Small allocations in Infill Villages that are well related to the existing form of the settlement will help to deliver a broader range of housing stock including affordable housing.

Huntingdonshire District Council agree to Greater Cambridge’s approach to a settlement hierarchy. The approach supports proportionate levels of growth focusing on larger growth in areas with public transport provision. Minor Rural Centres, Group Villages and Infill Villages are afforded smaller development quotas to meet local need and organic growth (providing choice in the housing market). This approach is supported as it should facilitate local development without overwhelming services and facilities and minimising increased carbon emissions as a result of increased commuting by car due to a lack of public transport provision.

The settlement hierarchy review within the strategy topic paper appears to assess each settlement in terms of the services located within Parish boundaries rather than considering how different settlements interact and support each other. Paragraph 79 of The NPPF states that “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.”
When assessing each settlement perhaps the distance to the nearest service should be the criteria (such as was used within the HELAA site assessments) rather than just whether the service is available or not in the Parish. For example, the village of Meldreth is closely supported by the facilities of Melbourn. We question whether the Shared Planning Services had considered an analysis of existing communities under the 20-minute neighbourhood principles, how would Cambourne perform under such analysis? This may indicate what additional services are required within existing communities to help achieve a more local sustainable growth to our communities. Identifying shortfalls in community service and facilities in this manner may help local communities plan and encourage other benefits and facilities within neighbourhood plans, for example.

OBJECT

Bloor Home Eastern is promoting land east of Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP.

Papworth Everard is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in South Cambridgeshire District Council's current settlement hierarchy, and no amendment is proposed to this by the current consultation document. The settlement therefore sits towards the top of the Council’s settlement hierarchy and Bloor Homes Eastern agree with the status of the village. Papworth Everard contains an extensive range of services and facilities including a convenience store, hairdressers, fish and chip shop, coffee shop and a restaurant, a primary school, children’s nurseries, post office, library, doctor’s surgery/health centre, veterinary surgery, churches and village hall. Development has also commenced to deliver a bakery, microbrewery and Public House on the former print works site, south of Church Lane. This demonstrates the site is very well connected to existing services and facilities within the village.

There is access to an established bus service which provides connections from the village to Cambourne, St Neots, Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives. The main bus route is provided by the X3 bus. Improvements to Papworth Everard’s connectivity and sustainability are also currently being delivered or a proposed. Improvements to bus services are proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership. A new cycle and pedestrian link from Papworth to Cambourne is currently being delivered by Cambridgeshire County Council. Improvements are also proposed to the A428, and East West Rail would result in the creation of a new station at Cambourne which would significantly improve Papworth Everard’s rail connectivity.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity within the settlement boundaries of most villages. There are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 30 dwellings within existing settlement boundaries in Minor Rural Centres, and Papworth Everard is an example of this. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required e.g. less than 10 dwellings. Additionally, small sites such as this are unlikely to deliver infrastructure and community facilities to support the continued vitality of villages such a Papworth Everard.

The proposed development of land east of Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard would delivery significant infrastructure and community benefits. This would include the benefits that were associated with the previous proposal for the site including: reserve land for a pre-school facility; contributions towards primary and secondary school provision; library contribution; contribution for improvements to Papworth Surgery; enhancements to off-site public footpaths; enhancements to bus services to deliver an additional service in the peak hour.

The Masterplan submitted with these representations also demonstrates how additional benefits could be delivered including a scout hut/community facility. The proposed development is landscape led, with significant areas of open space and planting. Bloor Homes Eastern are also committed to ensuring the suitability of the proposed development, not just in terms of its location, but also through the inclusion of EV charging points, air source heat pumps, PV panels and a car club with associated car club spaces throughout the proposed development.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages including at Papworth Everard.

The proposed Settlement Hierarchy reflects the same approach as set out within the Adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. This approach is therefore not progressive or positive in its outlook and does not take into account situations where it is demonstrated there is a need for a larger amount of growth to support villages and local communities.

The levels of development within Group Villages remain the same at a maximum size of 8 dwellings, with an exception to increase the size of development to 15 dwellings where this would make the best use of a single brownfield site. This approach severely restricts the number of opportunities that could deliver housing in a Group Village, such as Fowlmere, that have a primary school, businesses, village hall, church, and village store that could support a larger development, and where the village is connected to the surrounding area and Cambridge by a bus service. The sustainability credentials of Group Villages should therefore be further reviewed, and a greater level of development allowed at and adjoining these villages.

As set out in the representations to Policy S/SB: Settlement Boundaries, it is considered that there is limited capacity for further development within the settlement boundaries of most villages. Current policy sets out development of up to 8 dwellings in Group Villages, 30 dwellings in Minor Rural Centres and unlimited development within Rural Centres. However there are few outstanding development opportunities for development of this scale within existing settlement boundaries. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. It is considered that the site size thresholds for each category of village are largely irrelevant and ineffective because very few sites are actually available, and those that are available would fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required (i.e. fewer than 10 dwellings).

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

It is requested that the site size limits for each category of village are deleted and replaced with a general policy that supports development within existing settlement boundaries, in conjunction with a revised development strategy that allocates suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages.

1. Foxton is identified as a 'Group Village' in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) Settlement Hierarchy. Group Villages, such as Foxton, are the tier of settlement below Minor Rural Centres in the settlement hierarchy.

2. There have been a considerable number of recent appeal decisions that have confirmed that that Group Villages are capable of accommodating housing growth due to their service provision and settlement hierarchy status.

3. Foxton possesses a range of amenities capable of supporting the day to day needs of residents. These amenities include a pub, a village shop, a post office, a vehicle repair garage, a car sales dealership, a village hall, primary school, a church and a recreation ground (with a children's playground, tennis courts, a bowling green, a football pitch and cricket pitches). The Village also offers various employment opportunities (industrial and office), including at Burlington Park and the A10 Triangle.

4. The attached Table 3 provides a schedule of key local services and their approximate distance to our client's promoted sites.

(SEE SEPERATE SHEET FOR TABLE 3)

5. The submitted Table 3 provides a clear indication that future occupiers of our client's promoted two sites would have convenient access to a range of services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport.

6. The proposed mixed-used development at 'Land to the south-east of Cambridge Road' (HELAA Ref 40408) will continue to strengthen the village's employment offerings and support the wider rural economy. The scale of residential development proposed at 'Land to the north and east of Barrington Road' (HELAA Ref: 40412) is appropriate to the size of the village and would support the long term vitality of the village and provide the local community with housing choice.