The rural southern cluster

Locate the Genome campus where you are planning to build new homes - north of the city. E.g., in Cambourne. It makes no sense to locate new employment growth south of the city and the majority of new homes north of the city. This contradicts the desire to have sustainable growth.

As public transport links are good- support the inclusion of clustering new development in this area.

Both of these are in the green belt and need protection from excessive development.

We support the general principle of appropriate development in the rural southern cluster because it improves sustainability by co-locating employment and housing.

Two new housing sites have been identified within the Rural southern cluster, one of which is in the Green Belt. It is welcomed that the LPA have identified exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release. It is considered however, that the LPA have not gone far enough in releasing Green Belt land to meet the demanding housing requirements for the Greater Cambridge area. It is considered that additional land should be identified in the rural area for moderate levels of Green Belt release to ensure that the viability of the rural areas within the plan area are protected and enhanced.

Two new housing sites have been identified within the Rural southern cluster, one of which is in the Green Belt. It is welcomed that the Local Planning Authority have identified exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release within the plan area. It is considered however, that the LPA have not gone far enough in releasing Green Belt land to meet the demanding housing requirements for the Greater Cambridge area. It is considered that additional land should be identified in the rural area for moderate levels of Green Belt release to ensure that the viability of the rural areas within the plan area are protected and enhanced.

We question the development strategy approach to elevate this area to its own policy section context over and above other rural public transport and employment clusters such as the area surrounding Melbourn – Cambridge. We believe this south western area should be explored in equal depth as an opportunity area to support existing communities with strong existing public transport connections and employment opportunities.

Huntingdonshire District Council support the proposed policy aims to support business clusters to the South of Cambridge “through ensuring that more business space is provided where needed to support existing clusters, and through a limited amount of new housing in and around villages that are well-connected to jobs by public transport, cycling and walking facilities. It is agreed that there is a case to be made for exceptional circumstances to release some limited areas of Green Belt land here if it results in generating less carbon emissions from car use.

A major transport consideration need to take place before any proposed expansion. A all rural areas must not be segregated from Cambridge particularly where Jobs and Services nearby are none skill set variable.

There is fear in communities in the south, along the A1301 corridor, of a process of urbanisation from Stapleford to Saffron Walden. Major planning applications have been considered on a standalone basis, with scant consideration for cumulative or incremental impacts on landscape and existing settlements. A moratorium is required on proposals for large developments in the upper Cam valley. Water usage/stress, landscape impacts, and impacts on the fragile river/chalk stream environment to be reassessed once developments already permitted, or planned for in the current process or the Adopted Plan, are in place. Cross-border liaison under Duty to Cooperate is required.

see attached

Planning has been granted to develop some of these areas but the roads will need significant upgrades. As well infrastructure. Infrastructure (schools, Dr's etc) should be a priority and build before other buildings.

Whilst the current development strategy proposes “some” development in the rural southern cluster, where homes and jobs can be located close to each other and served by good quality public transport, cycling and walking links, it is considered that the scale of the proposals and ambition is inadequate.

There is a mismatch between the economic potential of the innovative and fast growing agglomeration of science and technology based employment sites in the rural southern cluster and the scale and nature of new homes and employment sites being planned for locally to support it.

It is imperative that all opportunities to promote economic growth are taken, particularly, where this can increase the competitiveness of the UK economy and stimulate job creation and skills development. It is important that there is both sufficient and the right type of business space to meet the needs of those who want to locate in the area.

The Wellcome Trust is innovating through the form of employment and housing investment it is making at the Genome Campus at Hinxton, but this approach requires extending further across the rural southern cluster in view of the wider economic potential.

SmithsonHill is beginning to explore the option to adapt and amend its AgriTech proposal at Hinxton (site previously subject to planning inquiry and put forward to the call for sites as an employment-led site) to support a wider mix of employment uses that support the ongoing successful development of the growth cluster.

In relation to SmithsonHill’s site at Hinxton the following is emphasised:

• The strategic significance of the location in the rural southern cluster, close to Whittlesford Parkway Station, and the absence of green belt designation in respect of the site itself
• The potential of the site to support the AgriTech sector and wider science related activity through bespoke employment accommodation
• Ambition to deliver a place with the highest social, economic and environmental credentials – including net gain in terms of biodiversity – noting the scale of the available site area
• Reflecting the AgriTech park planning appeal decision, the need to explore an amended site development strategy that can better mitigate the impact of built development on the character and appearance of the landscape and the setting of heritage assets.

There is a need to consider the future role of SmithsonHill’s Hinxton site within the wider context of a very economically important area with several major developments coming forward, including the Wellcome Trust’s proposals and Huawei’s R&D and manufacturing centre at the ‘Spicers site’, Sawston, combined with the need for a more balanced, sustainable and joined up approach. This suggests a broader and more integrated development strategy is appropriate to support the rural southern cluster including additional employment land at SmithsonHill’s site (which is spatially located within the heart of the economic cluster) and residential development more widely.

Regret any loss of good farmland and countryside. Concerns over traffic congestion, poor infrastructure and lack of water resources. Concern regarding significant building on floodplains. Concern regarding the effect of Haverhill expansion on traffic - this expansion is to supply cheaper housing for commuters; they need their own workplaces and this area needs genuinely affordable housing for lower-paid workers

We support the Council’s aim to support growth within the southern rural cluster (in which Great Shelford with Stapleford and Sawston are located).
As the emerging plan recognises, the cluster is “home to a range of major business parks with world-leading facilities and has some excellent and improving public transport links”.
We also support the release of Green Belt within the cluster and consider the delivery of new housing growth next to established sustainable villages. This will mean that new residents are close to sources of employment as well as the facilities and services they will need.

Grange Farm -- an exemplary new settlement of 4,000 to 5,000 homes -- is being promoted by The Grange Farm Partnership on land to the south-east of Cambridge close to several major employment hubs. Grange Farm was not on the agenda when the Regulation 18 plan was prepared, but now that it is, it is the hope of the developers that it will be taken as the seriously beneficial proposition that it is, and absorbed into the Regulation 19 Local Plan in due course. Grange Farm has also been submitted in response to the parallel Call for Sites exercise.

he Welding Institute (TWI)
Object
The rural southern cluster
Requested Change
Figure 33: Map shows proposed development sites in the rural southern cluster. Granta Park and The Welding Institute (TWI) is not referenced under the terms of this policy and therefore not reflective of the importance of Granta Park.

CBC Limited and the landowners support the recognition that existing key assets in the South Cambridge Life Sciences cluster need to be maintained and developed to retain their effectiveness and value to the wider economy. The South Cambridge Life Sciences cluster is one of the UK’s most important Applied Research and Development hubs. CBC, as the largest cluster and home to the biggest anchor institutions in this network plays a central role and is the best and most sustainable location to accommodate significant growth. The success of the ecosystem is closely linked to the success and continued enhancement of CBC.

The need to support life science employment in the RSC with new housing is recognised. The Plan states the need is so great, the benefits so significant, to justify the release of land from the Green Belt. The failure to make adequate provision for new housing in the RSC will have serious implications for travel patterns, CO2 emissions, affordability, shortage of housing and access to skilled labour. Section 5 of Grosvenor's representation, the Design Vision and Environmental Report, introduce a new site for 300 Zero Carbon homes at Whittlesford to meet part of this need in a highly sustainable location.

We have responded to the issues raised in the HELAA rejected Site No. 40078 (Six Mile Bottom) and set out how this site will meet the objectives of the Local Plan through the following accompanying documents:
• Westley Green Strategic Case For Development
• Housing and Employment Forecasts for Greater Cambridge
• Sustainable Transport and Connectivity Strategy
• Health and Wellbeing Strategy
• Climate Change Strategy

Any new site-specific allocations for this area must confirm the need to undertake an appropriate assessment of existing health infrastructure capacity, and require any applicant/developer to fully mitigate the impact of any proposals through appropriate planning obligations – and early engagement with the NHS on the form of infrastructure required.

The site-specific allocations should set out principles for delivering improvements to general health and wellbeing, and promote healthy and green lifestyle choices through well-designed places.

This submission is from 30 villagers of Babraham. We would like this document to be regarded as 26 individual submissions. The list of signatory names and addresses are found on an accompanying document "signatories".

We believe that the BRC submission needs to be placed in context of other sites brought forward and listed in Appendix 4: proformas for all HELAA sites (Part A) including: 51604; 51604a; 40297; and 40509. All sites together surround Babraham village. We do not feel that this process adequately explains the risk to our village as demonstrated by earlier accepted developments in our Parish including the GCP Babraham P&R and automated bus route; the soon to be completed Hawthorns; and S/RSC/H1 (c).

These individual sites taken both individually and together will have a significant adverse impact on Babraham village character, its surrounding environment, local wildlife habitat and historic interest. Specifically, these submissions, if accepted, will:
1. Amalgamate the villages of Sawston and Babraham to create a ribbon of housing stretching from Trumpington village, through the Shelfords and Stapleford. The new proposed housing would extend out to the A11 and A1307 to connect with the proposed Babraham P&R, Granta Park, Abbington and Pampisford.
2. Increase the current housing stock of a village regarded by Greater Cambridge Partnership as suitable for “infill only” by 2650% from 130 houses to 3710 houses.
3. The most recent Housing Needs Assessment (November 2021) advises that Babraham village should accommodate 10 additional houses over the next 10 years. The proposals far exceed this advice.
4. Take no account of the historic importance of Babraham village, its link to farming through the Bennet and Adeane family who built Babraham Hall and also introduced numerous agricultural innovations leading to a rich farming heritage. Their insight and commitment to the village over the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries created the unspoilt parkland setting surrounding Babraham Hall and the unobstructed open farming landscape in which they sit.
5. Build on land once farmed by Jonas Webb, who first created the Babraham enclosures and then became a world renowned farmer in the Parish of Babraham. He pioneered early animal husbandry winning all major farming prizes. A Grade 2 listed statue commemorating his life stood for over a Century in the Cambridge Corn Exchange before being relocated to the centre of Babraham village.
6. Build on the few open landscape windows within the linear settlement, not least an ancient water meadow running alongside the River Granta to the South East.
7. Destroy important wildlife habitats in the form of river systems, riverine habitat corridors, floodplain grasslands and ancient water meadows.
8. Build around and adversely affect the setting of the 13 Grade 1, 2* and 2 listed buildings within the village and wider Parish.
9. Surround Babraham Hall’s historic open parkland setting on all sides with new housing and laboratories, destroying the open, rural landscape character entirely.
10. Take no account of the numerous and important archeological findings including Anglo Saxon settlements and graves only recently identified during exploratory digs in preparation for the Greater Cambridge Partnership guided bus route between Babraham and Sawston.
11. Place a considerable number of houses and research facilities on and close to floodplains stretching along the River Granta.
12. Put overwhelming pressure on the already overburdened river Granta in the form of additional water abstraction requirements, and damage the ecological balance of Cambridges chalk streams and associated habitats.
13. Place unsustainable and excessive pressure on limited village amenities, dominate a small historic village and infrastructure designed for only 130 houses.
14. Add to what has already been a large programme of building over the last 5 years within Babraham Parish including:
a. 120 house Hawthorns development near completion to the North of Sawston Road
b. Doubling in size of the Babraham Research Institute between the A1307 and River Granta.
c. 260 houses over 12 hectares of Green Belt to the South of Sawston Road planned for completion in 2020-2041.

Accompanying documents include a list of signatories and an overview of Babraham and what the villagers of Babraham hold dear.

Whilst wishing to support growth at the Biomedical campus, Shepreth Parish Council (SPC) urges that care be taken to protect the villages from disproportionate development.

The Cambridgeshire Development Forum brings together a diverse range of organisations with a shared commitment to the delivery of high-quality developments in the Cambridgeshire region. We include promoters, developers, housebuilders, housing associations, planners, advisers, law firms, design companies, transport planners and related professionals in our membership. We do not promote individual sites and are focused on achieving more effective delivery of plans in our region. We value the engagement we receive from local planning authorities, the Combined Authority and Central Government. We welcome this opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Local Plan.

These representations reflect shared views among our members but should not be interpreted as representing the views of any individual member organisation in membership of the Forum.

Responses:

Q1: the additional 550 homes a year should be regarded as a minimum figure, which should be reviewed regularly in relation to the growth in jobs within the travel-to-work areas

Q2: the spatial strategy for development should focus the larger development sites in locations which offer public transport options to reach major employment centres. Development in rural locations of an appropriate scale should not be deterred as and when more sustainable personal transport options are available, eg EVS using renewable energy.

Q3: The Cambridge East Development should be connected directly to the City centre and the inner urban ring of development at the Biomedical campus, North Cambridge and the Science Park, Eddington and West Cambridge. But it should not be a wholly residential development. It should be a mixed development including commercial, residential and leisure/ retail options. It should be envisaged as a distinct place, with its own character. It could include high-rise apartments suitable for the younger workers who comprise many Cambridge area workforces.

Q4: North-East Cambridge should offer a residential opportunity for those employed in the technology sectors around Cambridge, including a significant component of affordable housing for market sale, market rent, shared ownership, and social housing.

Q5: development in and close to the biomedical campus should be prioritised for the healthcare, research, and technology cluster; significant adjacent sites should not be developed for large-scale residential purposes.

Q6: Cambourne should provide jobs near the new homes and include more employment space potentially including a commercial hub based on any new railway station above the A428.
Outside this commercial and retail hub, Cambourne should be focused on the large-scale offering of homes for families of those working across the Cambridge area.

Q7: in the southern rural cluster, opportunities for development on brownfield sites and for rural diversification, with small business-related developments should not be excluded.
Related residential development on smaller sites should also be accommodated, taking account of the Neighbourhood Plans. A priority should be given to sites in villages on rail routes, at public transport nodes and within public transport corridors. Subject to the decisions to be made concerning the East-West Rail Link, the option for significant growth and/or new settlement in appropriate locations that maximises the use of all forms of public transport should be considered as additions to the sites proposed.

[Q8-13 omitted]


We have welcomed the engagement with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning team, and look forward to this continuing through this process in future discussions.

Cambridgeshire Development Forum December 2021

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This representation has been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd to support the promotion of land to the north-west of Balsham Road, Linton as part of the Greater Cambridge First Proposals Consultation 2021.

1.2 In September 2021 Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service published the Greater Cambridge Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), which provided an initial assessment of the sites put forward for consideration for allocation as part of the Call for Sites consultations within Greater Cambridge.

1.3 This representation provides a response to the ‘First Proposals’ Preferred Options Consultation and has been structured to respond to relevant questions as set out within the First Proposals Consultation. In addition, a detailed assessment is provided in respect of the HELAA Proforma for the site.

1.4 The HELAA excludes the Balsham Road site from allocation primarily on the basis of landscape issues, notably that the proposed development “would have substantial and unacceptable landscape and visual impacts that would not be sufficiently mitigated by the proposed landscape treatments”.

1.5 The site was submitted as part of the Call for Sites for circa 300 dwellings and a rural business park. In response to the HELAA consultation, an updated Landscape Technical Note and Opportunities and Constraints Plan has been prepared by Barton Willmore to respond to the landscape and townscape comments regarding the sensitivity of the site. As a result, it is proposed to set development back from the northern boundary and provide key landscape corridors through the site. The site is considered to have capacity for the provision for up to 300 dwellings and up to 1 hectare of employment land. The Technical Note by Barton Wilmore on the landscape and visual impact has been provided within appendix A of this response.

1.6 The Opportunities and Constraints Plan demonstrates where the most and least sensitive areas within the site are. This has been produced in conjunction with the Technical Note on landscape and visual impact and the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (2021). This has informed a reduced developable area. The revised scheme has been set back from the north, with clear landscape corridors, to allow clear landscape views to the Grade II Listed Water Tower to be fully maintained. The proposed development area represents a logical rounding off and extension to the large Minor Rural Centre of Linton which is a well-served village with a number of existing services and facilities.

1.7 Therefore, in view of the above, it is considered that several of the assessments criteria, particularly regarding the landscape impact should be re-categorised. It has been demonstrated in the supporting information provided that the allocation of this site would not have a significant adverse impact the landscape and townscape such that the site should be considered as a suitable, achievable and deliverable site for housing and should therefore be put forward for allocation in the emerging Local Plan. Further analysis of this is set out within section 7 of this report.

1.8 In support of this report, the following documents have been prepared; • Landscape and Visual Technical Advice Note – Barton Willmore; and • Opportunities and Constraints Plan – Barton Willmore.

1.9 In addition to the above documents, where relevant reference is also made to documents prepared and submitted previously as part of earlier rounds of consultation on the Local Plan.

2. QUESTION: Do you agree that we should plan for an extra 550 homes per year, so that housing keeps up pressure with increased jobs in our area?

2.1 We agree that it is very important that housing delivery keeps up for demand for increased jobs within the area.

2.2 As part of the preparation of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan, the Shared Planning Service has identified a need for 2,321 dwellings to be built per year. A significant proportion of this growth is made up of existing allocations within the Local Plan.

2.3 The initial evidence base and spatial options assessment for the emerging Local Plan, set three growth options; ‘minimum’ (40,300 dwellings - based upon standard methodology); ‘medium’ (46,200 dwellings- based upon economic forecast based upon long term historic employment) and ‘maximum’ (67,700 dwellings – based upon fast economic growth in the recent past). In view of this, the housing delivery target of 44,400 new homes over the plan period alongside 58,500 new jobs would fall between the ‘minimum ‘and ‘medium’ growth scenarios previously suggested.

2.4 The Development Strategy Topic Paper, that accompanies this consultation acknowledges that the Greater Cambridge economy is dynamic and does not readily align with national or regional forecasts for job growth. In particular, it has a world-renowned life sciences cluster which has the potential to drive growth beyond typical regional or national rates. It is also acknowledged that in the recent past employment growth within the region has been significantly higher than predicted.

2.5 Accounting for the evidence set out within the Development Strategy Topic Paper, it is not clearly justified why only 44,400 new homes and 58,500 new jobs are proposed over the plan period. It is considered that this approach should be re-visited to increase both housing and employment allocations within the Local Plan. It is considered that the delivery of housing should be significantly increased, in line with the ‘maximum’ growth forecast, to align with economic growth within the recent past. The case for maximum growth forecast is further supported by significant transport investment within the area over the plan period. This includes schemes such as East-West Rail, Cambridge South Station and the delivery of a number of Rapid Transit Routes proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

2.6 The provision for lower growth scenarios does also not appear to be consistent with the Government’s objectives for the Ox-Cam Arc as a focus for housing and employment growth with associated infrastructure

3. QUESTION: Do you agree that new development should mainly focus on sites where car travel, and therefore emissions, can be minimised?

3.1 Yes, in principle the proposal to focus development on sites where car travel can be minimised is supported. Consistent with this strategy, it is considered to be very important that some growth is delivered in the larger more sustainable villages that are located outside of the Green Belt, such as Linton. National policy is clear within paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where they will support local services. The updated NPPF (2021), also provides additional emphases on the suitability of providing significant extensions to villages, provided that they are well located and designed.

3.2 The CPIER report, which is referenced as a key document within the evidence base provides a detailed analysis regarding the potential benefits of focusing growth along key transport corridors. The proposed Cambridge South-East Transport Project (CSET), proposes significant sustainable transport improvements between Cambridge and Haverhill. This includes significantly improved public transport, including an off-road rapid transit bus route, along with significant cycleway improvements along the A1307, some of which have already been implemented. For ease of reference appendix D of this representation provides accessibility plans, prepared by Richard Jackson Partnership, which were previously submitted as part of the Issues and Options Consultation. The Accessibility Plans demonstrate the significant transport improvement measures within Linton and in between Linton and Cambridge.

3.3 In addition, Linton, benefits from being a sustainable settlement in its own right. As referred to within our previous representation at Issues and Options Stage (refer to Appendix C), Linton is the largest Minor Rural Service Centre (As defined within the adopted and emerging Local Plan) that is not situated within the Green Belt. It is also benefits from both primary and secondary education facilities and a large range of services, including shops, pubs, restaurants and community facilities.

3.4 Linton did also not receive any allocations within the 2018 Local Plan and therefore provision for additional growth as part of the Local Plan 2041 would be appropriate and assist with maintaining viability and vibrancy of the village by sustaining and enhancing rural services.

3.5 For the above reasons, it is considered that additional growth within Linton would be consistent with the objective of the Local Plan, which seeks to minimise car travel. Of the 6 sites submitted within Linton as part of the Call for Sites process, land to the north-west of Balsham Road, is considered to be a particularly sustainable and suitable site for residential development.

3.6 It is suggested that the provision for increasing the range of sites modestly to include smaller and medium sites in the rural area would provide significant benefits. For example, they could be delivered more quickly without requiring additional infrastructure, provide choice and flexibility in the housing market and secure affordable housing more immediately. This is a point recognised by the Inspector that examined the 2018 Local Plan for South Cambridgeshire as referenced within paragraph 31 of the report: “In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need to allocate more small and medium sized sites that could deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5-year HLS, until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of more affordable housing” (paragraph 114).

4. QUESTION: We feel that we should support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, with space for more healthcare facilities, research and housing. What housing, facilities or open spaces should be created around the campus?

4.1 We strongly agree that supporting the development and further expansion of Cambridge Biomedical Campus should be one of the key principles of the new Local Plan. To support this objective, it is imperative therefore that a proportion of new housing growth is located along sustainable transport corridors from the Biomedical Campus, to support the objective of the Local Plan outlined above (in section 3 of this statement), which seeks to minimise car travel.

4.2 It is also very important that the emerging Local Plan 2041 aligns housing and employment growth, with major transport schemes that are being promoted in and around Cambridge. The First Proposals provide a number of references to East-West Rail and the provision for Cambridge South Station, both of which are important new transport infrastructure projects. However, additional focus needs to be given the major infrastructure projects being promoted by the Greater Cambridge Partnership. Of particularly relevance to the Biomedical Campus expansion, is the Cambridge South East Rapid Transit Route (CSET), which is proposed to provide a rapid transit route from the Biomedical Campus to the market town of Haverhill, the majority of which will be provided as an off-road bus way route. It is considered important that substantial housing growth is provided to the south east of Cambridge along this rapid transit route, to ensure ease of access to the Biomedical Campus by sustainable transport means.

4.3 It is understood that the CSET Project has progressed significantly since the Issues and Options Consultation in 2020. It is understood that the Greater Cambridge Partnership are intending to submit a Transport for Works Order in early 2022. It is also an identified route within the current Local Transport Plan.

4.4 Linton is one of the largest settlements with South Cambridgeshire that will be served by the CSET route. Therefore, growth in this settlement would be consistent with one of the key objectives of the Local Plan, which seeks to minimise car travel by focusing growth on locations with good transport infrastructure. Linton is situated outside of the Green Belt and therefore it is considered that Linton should be the focus for growth ahead of settlements that lie within this designation such as Sawston.

5. QUESTION: What housing, jobs, facilities or open spaces do you think should be provided in and around these villages?

5.1 It is important that a range of housing, jobs and facilities are provided within larger villages as part of new allocations to allow them to thrive and remain vibrant. Countryside Properties are responsible for the promotion of land to the north-west of Balsham Road, Linton and have a track record of delivering high quality housing developments, which provide a mix of dwellings and tenures to meet objectively assessed housing needs. Countryside Properties are fully committed, to engagement with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and Linton Parish Council regarding the mix and type of housing to be delivered on land to the north-west of Balsham Road. The proposals also include the provision for the delivery of a substantial area of public open space with associated landscaping and Countryside Properties are flexible on the proposed use of this open space.

5.2 The submission of the site, also includes the provision for a Rural Business Centre of up to 1 hectare in size. This Rural Business Centre has the ability to ensure that jobs are provided within the application site and to support smaller start-up businesses within the local area. This further strengthens the sustainability case for development of this site.

5.3 It should however be noted that Linton is strategically well located to provide housing growth in close proximity to large employment generators and jobs such as the Genome Campus, Granta Park, Haverhill, the Biomedical Campus as demonstrated by the attached accessibility plan, prepared by Richard Jackson Partnership, that is provided within Appendix D.

6. QUESTION: Are there any sites which you think should be developed for housing or business use, which we haven’t got on our map so far?

6.1 Yes, land to the north-west of Balsham Road, Linton should be allocated for development and would be a sound allocation as part of the emerging Local Plan being brought forward by a housebuilder that has a good track record for delivery. Countryside is a leading national housebuilder and has established a strong reputation for delivering high-quality mixed-tenure housing developments and award-winning places to live and are committed to delivering a landscape led development at Balsham Road, Linton.

6.2 The land to the north-west of Balsham Road, Linton is being promoted for a residential-led mixed use development which comprises an employment area. The proposals consist of up to 300 dwellings and a rural business centre of up to 1 hectare in size.

6.3 Having reviewed the settlement morphology, the area of proposed built form is now concentrated away from the northern boundary, thereby extending the village in such a way that respects the more sensitive landscape views in the northern part of the site.

6.4 The proposed development is focussed towards the south of the site which is the least visible from the surrounding landscape, and will comprise of up to 300 dwellings. To the east the site is well screened by the existing scrap yard and structural vegetation.

6.5 Medium to long distant views are available of only the northern parts of the site and as such these areas are proposed as open green space, in order to protect the character of the rolling Chalkland, as well as views of the listed Rivey Hill Water Tower, as a prominent feature on the horizon above Linton, as seen from the landscape to the south, which is identified in the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment.

6.6 The opportunity and constraints plan also allows provision for clear views to the water tower, along green corridors within the site. This will also help protect views of the water tower to the north. The aim of integrating the settlement with the rural landscape is also furthered by the inclusion of lower density housing towards the northern parts of the area proposed for development, forming an outward-facing, transitional porous settlement edge.

6.7 Structural vegetation is proposed along the western extents of the southern boundary, in order to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing housing to the south, as well as the western boundary in order to reinforce and strengthen the existing vegetated buffer to the bridleway. Further structural vegetation is proposed along the northern boundary, following the natural contours of the land form in order to soften the artificially straight line of the hedgerow that cuts across the landscape. Belts of structural 10 vegetation running broadly east/west more centrally within the site similarly follow the existing contours in order to soften the proposed development and integrate it within the surrounding rural landscape - see The Landscape and Visual Opportunities and Constraints plan (LN-LP-04 Rev A).