S/SB: Settlement boundaries

The current settlement boundary along Bourn Road at Caxton is out of date as it does not represent the context of the current planning history on the southern side of Bourn Road. Planning permission has been granted for a dwelling and garage between 20 and 30 Bourn Road (LPA Ref: S/4069/19/FL) which is being built out and a replacement dwelling and a garage at 30 Bourn Road (LPA Ref: S/4023/18/FL) which remains extant and has been confirmed through a Certificate of Lawfulness (LPA Ref: 21/02839/CLUED) with this dwelling being replaced and moved further east. Given the houses on the opposite side of the road are in the settlement boundary, the settlement boundary should be redrawn as a minimum to include the land to the west of the Telephone Exchange and wrap around the new replacement dwelling of 30 Bourn Road to match the houses on the northern side of
Bourn Road.

Whilst settlement boundaries are supported, these should be comprehensively reviewed, especially in those settlements where no growth is proposed, and are located beyond the Green Belt.

Those settlements where it is desirable to retain existing services and facilities through maintenance or enhancement of vitality, in Minor Rural Centres such as Gamlingay, should have revised boundaries that allow for limited growth and respect the existing form of the settlement.

This will allow for some flexibility so that there is choice in terms of where people wish to live, and not just where it is considered people should live.

Paragraph 78 of the NPPF confirms that in rural areas, planning policies should be responsive to local circumstances, with policy 79 stipulating that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning Policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.

Therefore, it is considered that without a review of the settlement boundaries of Minor Rural Centres and the provision of additional sites that have been put forward through the call-for-sites, Policy S/SB would not comply with the aims of the Framework.

Support this policy- as it specifically relates to preserving the character of village settlement edges.These areas are being eroded by inappropriate development. Important to reference role of Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Guides

We support the proposed policy.

In updating the new settlement boundary for Orwell, the Land at Hurdleditch Road as identified by approved Reserved Matters application S/3870/18/RM should be included in the settlement boundary. This residential development for 49 dwellings and community car park adjoins the existing settlement and forms part of the built up area of the village. The Councils latest Housing Trajectory states that 39 of of 49 approved dwellings had been delivered as of December 2020. It would not be logical or sound for this delivered/completed development to not be included within the settlement boundary.

In updating the new settlement boundary for Orwell, the Land south of Hurdleditch Road as identified by approved planning application S/2379/13/FL should be included in the settlement boundary. The residential development at 'Oatlands' was delivered many years ago and forms part of the built up area of the village. It would not be logical or sound for this delivered/completed development to not be included within the settlement boundary.

Object to parts of this policy as being incomplete. The Local Plan (LP) states that it will include settlement boundaries around settlements, identifying areas that are considered to be part of the settlement for planning purposes. However, it fails to include, or refer to the area between Fen Ditton and Horningsea known as Honey Hill despite the fact that building a commercial development there extends the building capacity of North East Cambridge as described in the proposed North East Cambridge Area Action Plan.

Object also that the LP also states that where planned developments, such as new settlements, have reached sufficient certainty regarding their exact boundaries, new settlement boundaries will be drawn. This does not allow for a finite point at which that certainty is assessed and allows for “mission creep”. More careful wording is needed for this policy to prevent description of boundaries becoming vague. While the LP proposes that no development would be permitted outside settlement boundaries with exception, these exceptions include development supported by other policies in the plan. This would allow incursion in the Green Belt if it became expedient to enlarge a development already covered by other policies, such as Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge.

We support the proposal for settlement boundaries since they help preserve agricultural land and prevent unsustainable development in the countryside.

In line with their promotion of Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham, RWS Ltd advocate that the site should be included within the settlement boundary of Teversham as part of the allocation of the site for residential and community development.

West Wickham Parish Council strongly support this policy for the control of development in villages.

(Mineral and Waste) Has implications for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan (July 2021) (MWLP) Policy 5. Consultation with the mineral planning authority (MPA) is not needed for development proposals within a settlement boundary or where they are consistent with an allocation in the development plan for the area.

This policy hinders sustainable development coming forward at the edge of villages. While a limit to development may be required, the current approach is too limiting and will not allow villages to accommodate growth when required. Growth in village locations can contribute to housing delivery and the settlement boundaries policy should provide the flexibility for this to happen.

It is noted that the Council intends to redraw the settlement boundaries under Policy S/SB. The settlement boundary of Cottenham should be redrawn to reflect the changes that are currently taking place to the west of the settlement following the permissions under references S/2413/17/OL and S/1606/16/OL. These residential developments are both under construction and therefore should be included as part of the settlement boundary.

Once the settlement boundary is redrawn, there is one remaining parcel of undeveloped land which would be incorporated into the settlement boundary. The land to the rear of 89 Rampton Road, Cottenham (as shown on the attached plan reference SK-1-101). This leftover parcel should be allowed to come forward for residential development and could provide for a need which is currently unmet in terms of self-build plots. Although at early design stages, it is anticipated that the site could accommodate 7 self-build plots (see attached indicative site plan reference SK-1-101).

The site is suitable for development, located within an existing residential area in walking distance from the services and facilities within Cottenham. Safe and suitable access to the site is available (as shown on Site Plan SK-1-101) through the Persimmon development adjacent to the site which is currently under construction. The site is available for development now with support from both landowners as evidenced through the attached letters of support and land registry documents demonstrating ownership. The site is also achievable, as there are no foreseen abnormal costs associated with this land. The site therefore meets the tests of deliverability as set out within the NPPF.

As part of this consultation, the site has been put forward as per the Council’s request for potential sites under reference NNZRHQVR which provides further details regarding the site.

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 204,1 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

Hastingwood Developments does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Hastingwood Developments at Bury End Farm off North End in Meldreth contains land and buildings that are available for redevelopment for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

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 204,1 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

Comment. Whilst the approach is acceptable, we would urge the Council to consider altering the parish boundaries between Sawston and Babraham, where new development on the eastern edge of Sawston currently lies in Babraham parish but clearly forms part of the village of Sawston and makes use of Sawston’s amenities. We would urge the land identified under site allocation 40509 to be included within the revised Sawston Parish boundaries after which the proposed guided busway will form a natural division between the two parishes and a suitable location for the new parish boundary.

It is noted that the Council intends to review/ redraw the settlement boundaries under Policy S/SB. The settlement boundary of Sawston should be amended to include land adjacent Spring House, Church Lane, Sawston. This plot was leftover after the residential development along St Marys Road and should be included to correctly ‘round’ off the settlement edge. Currently the settlement boundary cuts through our client’s land which demonstrates that historically there has been an error in terms of the mapping of the boundary. A plan is attached showing the proposed amendment to the settlement boundary. This infill plot should be allowed to come forward for a self-build opportunity which South Cambridgeshire promote as a vanguard authority for self-build.

The site is also currently designated within the Green Belt and is incorrectly shown as part of the Registered Park and Garden associated with Sawston Hall. Representations have therefore been made in relation to Policy GP/GB on this matter.

OBJECT

CEMEX does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by CEMEX at land west of Malton Road in Orwell is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

We do not consider that settlement boundaries should be imposed as they have historically become out of date during the plan period and provided an unnecessary restraint on development and usually exclude many sites which would be suitable for development during the plan period. They are only a real benefit to the small rural villages where development can be contained to the appropriate infill plots.

There does not appear to be a map included with the consultation setting out the proposed boundaries so we are unable to comment on the specific boundaries however in order to maximise flexibility in the approach to future land supply it would be sensible not to apply settlement boundaries on the most sustainable locations – Minor Rural Centre and above - in order to ensure that future land supply can be considered in the context of the overall suitability of the site when assessed against the wider policies of the plan and not based on whether it is inside a settlement boundary or not.

OBJECT

Mr Meadows does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Histon, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, and local green space designations restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary, and the Green Belt restricts development outside the settlement boundary. One of the allocations from the adopted Local Plan has not yet come forward; Site H/1 (d): Land north of Impington Lane for 25 dwellings. It is very likely most development opportunities that did exist within Histon have been taken up by now, and any that do remain (other than the outstanding allocation) would be for one or two dwellings only that are not required to provide affordable housing.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Mr Meadows at land off Cottenham Road in Histon is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for 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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

The Elbourn Family does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by the Elbourn Family off Fenny Lane in Meldreth is suitable and available for residential development, and should be allocated. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

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 figure 4 on page 22 of the Plan identifies the locations of proposed new housing development for the years 2021 to 2041. It illustrates an orange circle notation for South Cambridgeshire other allocations and windfall sites: 7,095 homes.
1.3 This response simply requests written confirmation that our client’s (Abbey Developments Ltd) site comprising 55 new homes at Bartlow Road Linton is included within the figure of 7,095.

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 draft Policy S/SB will define the boundaries of settlements for planning purposes. The Proposed policy direction heading then explains that the boundaries will be drawn on the Policies Map that will accompany the draft Local Plan for consultation.
1.3 The Policies Map which accompanies the First Proposals document does not show settlement boundaries. However, in the following link:
https://www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/emerging-plans-and-guidance/greater-cambridge-local-plan/
in a window described as Greater Cambridge Local Plan with the logo 3C shared services, that map allows a layer entitled ‘settlement hierarchy Adopted 2018 Local Plan’ to be switched on and that reveals a blue notation across the majority of Linton and its boundaries to coincide with the settlement boundary. That boundary significantly, excludes our client’s site north and south of Bartlow Road. Furthermore, it also excludes dwellings along Paynes Meadow which is to the north of Linton and accessed from Chalklands.
1.4 It is critical for the new Policies Map to show the new settlement boundary for Linton and ensure that it includes both of the sites at Bartlow Road within the built-up area of the village. This accords with the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five-Year Housing Land Supply document which was published on 1st April 2021. This as explained in the Executive Summary of this document provides the joint councils’ claim that they have 6.1 years housing land supply for the 2021 to 2026, 5 year period. This site would have been brought forward sooner had it not been delayed by the procrastination of the local authority.
1.5 At this stage it is requested that the Greater Cambridge Authorities confirm in their response to this submission that they will revise the settlement boundary at Linton to accord with the details set out above. If this is not agreed then this representation should be maintained though the public examination stage of the Plan.

7.1 The Policies Map must be revised to enclose the site described in this representation within the existing settlement of Linton. The boundary shown on the First Proposals map is the same as the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan shown in Appendix 7. Given the site is included in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2021), it means that to be consistent with the Council’s own evidence, its own First Proposals Plan and the NPPF, the Policies Map must be updated.
7.2 The change or modification to the Plan is to revise the settlement boundary around Linton as shown by the green pecked line in Appendix 8. This new boundary will follow the extent of the new built-up area of Linton leaving the open space for the development still as part of the open countryside. Without this change the Plan will remain unsound because it does not reflect the Greater Cambridge evidence as it fails to confirm the contribution of the site towards the housing trajectory. It also fails to confirm the Council’s own decision to grant planning permission as a sustainable location, as evidenced in Appendix 2.

OBJECT

Shelford Investments does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Great Shelford and Stapleford, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, important countryside frontage designations restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary, and the Green Belt restricts development outside the settlement boundary. It is very likely most development opportunities that did exist within Great Shelford have been taken up by now, and any that do remain would be for one or two dwellings only that are not required to provide affordable housing.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is acknowledged that the emerging GCLP has identified a preferred allocation site in Stapleford, which is proposed to be released from the Green Belt. It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate additional suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Shelford Investments at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for 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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

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 prevent stagnation and the 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. Ickleton). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality scheme with extensive landscaping that would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.

Furthermore, for Infill Villages such as Ickleton, the current strategy to restrict schemes to an indicative maximum of 2 dwellings (or 8 dwellings where this would make the best use of a single brownfield site) within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet the existing need for affordable homes or the projected need that could follow nearby business park expansions. As a result, the affordability crisis will deepen in the rural area. For example, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Ickleton, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. With limited scope for development within the tightly drawn settlement boundary, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of the village. To discourage the development of less suitable sites and assist in the delivery of much-needed affordable housing, the most logical approach is to allocate further sites on the edge of sustainable villages such as Ickleton.

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.

OBJECT

RO Group does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by RO Group at land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the Great Chishill to support the existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in the village.

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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

Mr Francis does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Fen Ditton, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, and important countryside frontages restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary. It is very likely most development opportunities that did exist within Fen Ditton have been taken up by now, and any that do remain would be for one or two dwellings only that are not required to provide affordable housing. There are no opportunities within the settlement boundary for Fen Ditton to deliver major development of 10 or more dwellings where affordable housing would be required.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Mr Francis at land off Ditton Lane in Fen Ditton is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development; the representations to Policy GP/LC: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character and to the site assessment in the HELAA address the Important Countryside Gap designation at the Ditton Lane site.

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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

KG Moss Will Trust/Moss Family do not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Fulbourn, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary, and the Green Belt restricts development outside the settlement boundary. The proposed development at the Ida Darwin Hospital site was a longstanding allocation, the proposed development off Teversham Road was approved at a time when the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, and the proposed development to the west of Balsham Road was a rural housing exception scheme; as set out in the representations to Section 2.6/Policy S/RRA affordable housing needs have and will remain despite these developments. It is very likely that all other development opportunities that did exist within Fulbourn have been taken up by now, and any that do remain (other than the outstanding proposed developments) would be for one or two dwellings only that are not required to provide affordable housing.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity of land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The sites promoted by KG Moss Will Trust/Moss Family in Fulbourn are suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for 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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

It will be important to ensure that the Settlement Boundaries are not drawn too tightly around the built-up areas of settlements, as this could result in an inflexible approach to delivering housing sites. The Local Plan should provide a more flexible approach to housing delivery to ensure that a mix of development scales are provided for. This will help to sustain the delivery of homes if some of the larger sites allocated in the plan do not meet the housing delivery expectations then additional sites should be allowed to come forward for development. In order to ensure maximum flexibility is provided it will be necessary to ensure that a pragmatic approach is adopted in the drafting of settlement boundaries.

It will be important to ensure that the Settlement Boundaries are not drawn too tightly around the built-up areas of settlements, as this could result in an inflexible approach to delivering housing sites. The Local Plan should provide a more flexible approach to housing delivery to ensure that a mix of development scales are provided for. This will help to sustain the delivery of homes if some of the larger sites allocated in the plan do not meet the housing delivery expectations then additional sites should be allowed to come forward for development. In order to ensure maximum flexibility is provided it will be necessary to ensure that a pragmatic approach is adopted in the drafting of settlement boundaries.

MPM Properties (TH) Ltd and Thriplow Farms Ltd does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries have now therefore been taken up. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain/limit some of the development opportunities within the existing built up area that do remain.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity of land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. Where opportunities for growth/development are limited, it is unlikely that the development needs of local communities that exist now or which will exist in the future will be able to be met.

The emerging GCLP should therefore carry out a capacity assessment and, utilising the evidence it gathers, seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages, adjusting the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages. The GCLP needs to ensure that these additional homes can be delivered and positively planned for to ensure their future delivery.

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.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs, it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet the affordable housing need.