S/SH: Settlement hierarchy

Not Supported.

It is recommended limits are placed on the individual scheme size of developments in Cambridge, Town and Rural Centre’s until such time as the unprecedented amount of growth in Greater Cambridge already in the pipeline (a 37% increase in homes from those existing in 2020) can be evaluated and the realisation of sustainable solutions eg Water, Electricity , health provision, access to education etc. ; new sustainable public transport infrastructure are known/resolved.

It is recommended Limits could be specified in line with the Windfall allowance calculated. The Vision & Aims  of the Local Plan are at risk should there be no limit on the size and scale of  schemes brought forward and approved.

An intensified and creative approach to sustainable transport options  , use / improvement of existing rail networks/services for example is recommended to address the CO2 objectives more so, than simply squeezing greater numbers of  people into Greater Cambridge. The Aims of the Local Plan : ‘Wellbeing & Social inclusion’ and ‘Great Places’ are of particular relevance and at risk here. As the CPIER (2018) report states high levels of economic growth will not be achieved if the good things about Cambridge are lost.

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/SH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/SH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/SH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/SH Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

Not Supported.
• It is recommended limits are placed on the individual scheme size of developments in Cambridge, Town and Rural Centre’s until such time as the unprecedented amount of growth in Greater Cambridge already in the pipeline (a 37% increase in homes from those existing in 2020) can be evaluated and the realisation of sustainable solutions eg Water, Electricity , health provision, access to education etc. ; new sustainable public transport infrastructure are known/resolved.

There seems to be considerable confusion over the terms village and town with the authors of the plan assuming that it is a matter of size and facilities (but undefined). The difference in law is only stated in the Local Government Act of 1974 which states a Parish Council (with many alternative names allowed such as Community Council as in Orchard Park) has a Chair(man) but a Town Council has a Mayor. There would be a considerable proportion of our community which would be apoplectic if they thought we were asking to be designated as a Town.

OBJECT

Endurance Estates is promoting land off Old House Road in Balsham for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Balsham is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and Endurance Estates agree with the status of 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 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing settlement boundaries in Group Villages, and Balsham 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 Balsham.

OBJECT

Endurance Estates is promoting three sites in Bassingbourn for residential development, and in representations has requested that these sites are allocated in emerging GCLP. Bassingbourn is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and Endurance Estates agree with the status of 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 30 dwellings within existing settlement boundaries in Group Villages, and Bassingbourn is an example where there are no opportunities within the boundary for sites of major developments of between 10 and 30 dwellings or more. It is likely that in most cases only small sites for one or two dwellings would be available. This outcome constrains the growth of villages and their ability to meet local housing needs and support existing services and facilities. 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 Bassingbourn.

Settlement hierarchy is sensible.
Windfall proposals for residential development coming through planning applications should be subject to limits on individual scheme size in accordance with democratically endorsed existing Neighbourhood Plan policies.

Although it makes sense to no put limits on windfall sites to allow for flexibility, they should still be considered within context of the local area and also in aggregate of total impact, rather than each site individually.

Policy S/SH Settlement Hierarchy
Ickleton PC agrees with this policy, and accepts Ickleton’s designation as an Infill Village. The policy should help prevent speculative development in the least sustainable places.

The general principal of a settlement hierarchy is supported but Policy S/SH should be refined in a number of areas.
First Proposal Pages 23, 31, 45, 122, 188 & 227 all reference the need for existing communities to thrive. This should be reflected in proposed policy S/SH, to support existing communities, without which Infill villages may become less sustainable and services diminish even further.
Development in Infill villages may exceptionally consist of up to about 8 dwellings where this would lead to re-use of a brownfield site.
By their very nature infill villages may have limited availability of Brownfield sites but have sites that otherwise would be acceptable. There is a general presumption for brownfield land to be prioritised ahead of greenfield and therefore limiting exceptional sites only to reuse of brownfield sites could prevent the use of a site that otherwise could be acceptable for use.
Infill villages would benefit from the greater flexibility proposed in consultation feedback, while retaining a level of control.
In Cambridge, Towns and Rural centres, limits and / or controls should be placed on individual scheme size to avoid over densification that can threaten other objectives of the Local Plan.
The Settlement Hierarchy should identify and place controls on factors that limit the effectiveness and intent of the Policy in directing housing to the most sustainable locations. For example where a business or infrastructure is relocated to the Green Belt to create a Brownfield site.

OBJECT

Mr James Manning is promoting land off Station Road in Willingham for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Willngham is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and Mr James Manning agrees with the status of the village because it contains a good range of services and facilities.

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 Willingham 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 Willingham.

Instead of limiting development to smaller villages because of them being poorly served, why not allow development with permission conditional on the provision of better services? There are villages surrounding Cambridge with excellent schools that may be better suited to expansion than the city of Cambridge which is at risk of sprawling ever further out, without the provision of additional schools and shops.

I strongly agree that the village hierarchy must reflect the provision of quality public transportation that provides a reasonable option to the car to and from places of work and study. That public transportation needs to be assessed by reference to frequency, hours of operation, and speed (relative to the car). Over the past 5 years, numerous large housing developments have taken place in village locations without good public transportation and the consequence has been entirely car dependent developments. This also has impact on the cost of living of people in affordable housing.

OBJECT

Enterprise Residential Development Ltd and the Davison Group is promoting land at Meadow Drift, Elsworth for residential development, and in representations has requested that the site is allocated in emerging GCLP. Elsworth is defined as a Group Village in the settlement hierarchy for South Cambridgeshire, and Enterprise Residential Development Ltd and the Davison Group agree with the status of the village. The village contains a good range of services and facilities, including a primary school, public houses, church and sport and social club. There is also a successful commercial area to the south of the village which provides employment opportunities. Cambourne and Papworth Everard provide additional services and facilities not provided within Elsworth. The site is within the heart of the village and is accessible to all of the services and facilities by walking and cycling. The local transport services available are such that future residents would have a realistic choice of travel modes. It is therefore considered that Elsworth is a suitable and sustainable location for additional residential development, with sustainable modes of transport available, providing an alternative to the car for some journeys.

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. 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 Elsworth.

Hallam Land Management (HLM) support limiting growth in the rural centres and villages to meeting local needs. To do otherwise, would not achieve a more sustainable pattern of development.

The settlement hierarchy is generally supported.

We know that a number of sewage treatment facilities upstream from Cambridge are unable to cope during periods of high rainfall (discharging raw sewage) and they are also contributing towards failing water quality by discharging pollution into water courses with low volume flows. We would like to see a policy that ensures that further development in any villages served by such sewage treatment works should be conditional upon improvements to those facilities, so that new development is not making the present situation any worse.

We act for various landowning clients and we are promoting sites in their ownership for residential development (please see separate representations to chapter S/RAA Allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area)
On behalf of our clients, we make the following comments on the Regulation 18 Preferred Options Consultation.

The site being promoted under reference 40302 is in Linton. The policy direction seeks to maintain Linton’s position and status in the settlement hierarchy as a Minor Rural Centre; however, the infrastructure improvements being made under the Cambridge South East Transport project seeks to provide better connections between Linton and Cambridge which support Linton to achieve the status of Rural Centre, given the great range of existing services that are akin to a Rural Centre. Further improvements to the existing services infrastructure in Linton can be secured through S106 agreement and financial contributions, associated with new development.

Pigeon supports the use of a Settlement Hierarchy as part of the spatial strategy, and broadly supports the suggested tiers within it.

Pigeon does not, however, support the review of the Settlement Hierarchy in respect of Hardwick. Whilst the review acknowledges that the village is located on the planned Greater Cambridge Partnership route between Cambourne and Cambridge, only one additional point is awarded for this in the scoring calculation. This assessment fails to acknowledge the impact of the planned transport improvements along this corridor, which include the introduction of Scotland Farm Park and Ride directly opposite Hardwick, enhanced cycling connections to Cambridge and Cambourne, and the construction of a new East-West railway station at Cambourne.

Pigeon suggests that during the next stage of the Local Plan process, the Council reviews the scoring system and allocates additional points to settlements which will be significantly more sustainable, with greater access to jobs, education, health, retail and leisure and recreation facilities.

By increasing the score of Hardwick by a single point from 8 to 9 would elevate the village above or on par with many villages identified in the higher tier category of a Minor Rural Centre. These include Girton 7, Gamlingay 7, Papworth Everard 6, Willingham Everard 9.

Pigeon consider Hardwick should be elevated from a Group Village to a Minor Rural Centre, with it capable of accommodating a level of growth far above the indicative maximum housing number

Further support to this argument is offered in the role Cambourne is proposed to serve, where draft policy SC/8 seeks to increase day to day services, bring forward new employment, as well as provide improved connections to surrounding villages. A closer functional relationship between Hardwick and an expanded and better served Cambourne will improve the sustainable credentials of Hardwick.

Turning to the limit of the size of schemes within minor rural centres, group villages and infill villages, setting an indicative maximum number fails to take into account individual site circumstances, and a site-specific approach should be adopted.

The consultation document outlines the preferred settlement hierarchy and identifies the main urban centre as Greater Cambridge. It will also seek to retain the approach within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 for locations outside Cambridge. The Local Plan presently identifies Papworth Everard as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ where residential development and redevelopment up to an indicative scheme size of 30 dwellings will be permitted. The former Papworth Hospital Site provides an opportunity to deliver a healthcare development, which would be over 30 dwellings, in the form of a healthcare use (C2). At this stage, we would suggest that Papworth Everard is identified in the emerging Local Plan as a ‘Rural Centre’, which would support and does not limit the development potential of the site at the former Papworth Hospital.

The former Papworth Hospital site represents a strategic and excellent opportunity to deliver a high-quality healthcare development (Use Class C2) for older persons on a previously developed site in a sustainable location. Therefore, and as has been demonstrated through this representation, the Council should consider allocating the site, as it is presently within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, to support extra-care accommodation within the existing community of Papworth Everard.

Support new settlements . Villages and minor rural centres should be the last resort in hierarchy of development - these have probably already taken more than their share, to the detriment of community, character and infrastructure..

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.

We have no objection to the proposal to group similar settlements into categories that reflect their scale, characteristics and sustainability. This is a common approach adopted by Local Plans and reflects how settlements have different roles and levels of potential to accommodate growth.
The proposed levels of the settlement hierarchy comprise:
• Cambridge City
• Towns
• Rural Centres
• Minor Rural Centres
• Group Villages
• Infill Villages
Both Sawston and Great Shelford with Stapleford are proposed to be identified as Rural Centres.
Appendix 1H: Settlement Hierarchy Review of the Development Strategic Topic Paper, considered whether the existing hierarchy of settlements (within existing plans) continues to be relevant.
Regarding Rural Centres, the Review states that “Rural centres have been recognised as the largest and most sustainable villages in the district. They have good access to a secondary school (either within the village or accessible by good public transport), employment opportunities, and a variety of services and facilities, and have good public transport links to Cambridge or a market town. They stand out as having the larger populations than other villages. Rural Centres with their range of services play a role in serving the surrounding smaller villages and to meet their daily needs. It remains appropriate to recognise this small number of larger villages as a higher order than other settlements”.

We support the Councils recognition that villages such as Stapleford (with Great Shelford) and Sawston are two of the most sustainable villages in the area owing to their good access to employment opportunities, a variety of services and facilities and good transport links.

Regarding Great Shelford with Stapleford, we welcome that the Review identifies that the two villages act as one settlement. We also note that the regular Citi 7 route link to Cambridge has been recognised. However, it states that there will be “a stop” on Phase 2 of the South East Cambridge Transport Route within the village, for accuracy we consider this needs to be updated to reflect the planned route, which will have two stops at either end of the village. Nevertheless, we do support the classification of Stapleford and Great Shelford as a Rural Centre.
In terms of Sawston, we also appreciate that the Review notes its public transport connectivity due to the Citi 7 route and the South East Cambridge Transport Route. It is also welcomed that the employment locations within the village are noted and the settlement’s role as a ‘hub’ for surrounding rural group and infill villages is recognised.
In light of the above, we believe Great Shelford with Stapleford and Sawston’s roles as Rural Centres is entirely justified.

the approach to the scale of development in villages needs revisiting. the approach cocntrols teh size of individual developments, but not the overall scale of development at a village. for example, in a Minor Rural Centre, 2 schemes of 29 dwellings is acceptable, but one of 31 is not. there is no logic or justification for such an arbitrary approach to the scale of development of individual sites.

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/SH Comments (1of 5 submissions due to high level of documents).

The Plan states that ‘Cottenham should be classified as a Minor Rural Centre reflecting a revision to the criteria for a segregated public transport route such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, which is not the case of Cottenham.’

We strongly disagree that Cottenham should be relegated in the settlement hierarchy.

Policy S/SH fails to define each categorisation of settlement simply stating the limits that will
be placed on development within each tier.

In the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Rural Centres are defined as those that are the largest, most sustainable villages of the district. They have good access to a secondary school (either within the village or accessible by good public transport), employment opportunities, a variety of services and facilities and have good public transport services to Cambridge or a market town.

Meanwhile minor Rural Centres are defined as those that have a lower level of services, facilities and employment than Rural Centres, but a greater level than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire, and often perform a role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland.

We maintain on this basis that Cottenham should remain a Rural Centre. The shortcomings in the approach proposed in the Greater Cambridge Plan is summarised below:

Cottenham continues to benefit from good public access and a range of shops and services. It remains a sustainable location for future development. By all other measures Cottenham remains comparable to the other Rural Centres, if anything the recent developments in the village have consolidated this. It is considered that this site remains suitable for in excess of 30 houses. To summarise:

Cottenham continues to offer good access to a secondary school, employment opportunities, a variety of services and facilities and have good public transport services to Cambridge.

In terms of population, amenities and services Cottenham remains largely comparable to the other Rural Centres. Equally it is evident that Cottenham has a greater range of facilities relative to the minor rural centres and is better able to accommodate growth;

The Greater Cambridge Plan (First proposals) does not define what is deemed to constitute a Town, Rural Centre or Minor Rural Centre. Notwithstanding, if you look at population, amenities and services however Cottenham remains largely comparable to Histon & Impington, Great Shelford & Stapleford and Sawston. Equally it is evident that Cottenham has a greater range of facilities relative to the minor rural centres;

It is stated within the Greater Cambridge First proposals that the reason for changes to the settlement hierarchy, is due to a revision to the criteria for a Rural Centre, in that they must 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. There is no justification for this fixation on certain forms or mediums of public transport. There is no doubting that Cottenham is accessible to the Greater Cambridge Area. There appears no sound logic for demoting the centre on this basis.

Cottenham benefits from a bus service to Cambridge every half hour. This service takes approximately 31 minutes where as services from Great Shelford and Stapleford take approximately 20-32 minutes, current services from Cambourne take approximately 30-50 minutes and services from Sawston take approximately 45 minutes. There is no clear basis on which Cottenham is therefore now deemed less accessible than the other Rural Centres therefore;

The Neighbourhood Plan (May 2021) identifies a desire locally / need to consolidate and enhance existing services and amenities, with policy that acknowledges the potential for sites in excess of 50 houses to come forward. Key issues highlighted in the plan include limitations on education, medical, leisure and recreational facilities. Aspirations in the plan point to the retention of Cottenham as a Rural Centre. Demotion of Cottenham’s status runs contrary to the policy aspirations of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The viability of Cottenham remains dependent on a critical mass of residents. It is in this context that the new residential development has been permitted in recent years. The neighbourhood plan identifies 500 units are to be added to Cottenham following permission granted in 2017-2018. This will increase the population further in
Cottenham. It is counter intuitive to down grade Cottenham in the settlement hierarchy having just allowed this growth which in effect consolidates its status as a rural centre.

Further to the above, demotion of Cottenham’s status at the expense of the nearby centres of Waterbeach and Northstowe presents real challenge to the future viability of Cottenham, in terms of services and amenities, given there potential appeal. The Neighbourhood Plan raises concern about the potential of rival centres to draw residents from Cottenham. Again, the promotion of local centres at the expense of Cottenham, which is instead being actively downgraded, fly’s in the face of the neighbourhood plan aspirations.

In determining applications for previous housing development in Cottenham, South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Planning Inspectorate have concluded that Cottenham is a sustainable, suitable location for large scale housing development.

Cottenham was promoted from a Minor Rural Centre to a Rural Centre in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 on the basis of its accessibility generally and its range of facilities and services. Since this time further residential development has taken place in the village. In this context it is unclear why Cottenham is considered to have become less sustainable.

A blanket limit of 30 units on any development site in a centre such as Cottenham, that is able to offer a sustainable range of services and facilities, runs contrary to the NPPF. Cottenham has in recent years been viewed as a sustainable location for additional housing. It is clear on this basis that any policy should allow for the review of the respective merits of any future residential proposals rather than simply prohibiting development on the basis of a generic, uninformed benchmark. Similarly it is clear that this policy runs contrary to Policy COH/2-2 of the Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan.

the approach to the scale of development in villages needs revisiting. the approach controls the size of individual developments, but not the overall scale of development at a village. for example, in a Minor Rural Centre, 2 schemes of 29 dwellings are acceptable, but one of 31 is not. there is no logic or justification for such an arbitrary approach to the scale of development of individual sites.