Rest of the rural area

Rural areas should only accommodate new development if it is local needs derived and has the support of the local community/parish council. It has to have a sustainable alternative to the private car- a reliable frequent public transport system (hourly) to a local transport hub/nearby market town/or a train station. Support expansion for existing businesses in the rural area, as long as proposals are in keeping with the areas character, and is of benefit to local residents.

Although these are acceptable, they are in danger of becoming isolated due to major infrastructure projects dissecting South Cambridgeshire.

Any development in the rest of the rural area should be absolutely minimised. The qualifier that some development is permitted within villages that have good transport links appears mis-guided. Cambridge city and new settlements have at least as good and generally better transport links, so this quality is not unique to villages. What is unique to villages is the ease with which their character can be completely ruined by over-development. This must be avoided at all costs

Given the significant level of development taking place at Northstowe, it is incredibly insensitive to proposal yet further development in Oakington, potentially destroying the village atmosphere and putting more pressure on already stretched infrastructure.

The proposed area has repeatedly flooded, with a significant amount of water sitting in the field during the winter of 2020. It would also increase traffic on Water Lane which has already seen an increase following the large Cottenham development.

We support the settlement hierarchy which prioritizes development around Cambridge City and in new settlements rather than in the rural area.

Object. The proposals have incorrectly omitted site JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston from the Rural Southern Cluster allocation. This site out performs the sites allocated within S/RRA given that it is located in a more sustainable location. Given that the site performs equitably or better than the allocated sites and is therefore equally or more suitable for development Site 40509 must be included as an allocation under S/RRA or otherwise the other allocations within S/RRA should be omitted from the Local Plan if the assessment is to be a fair, equitable assessment based on allocating the best performing sites.

The reason that the claim is made that the site has been incorrectly omitted is set out below:

We submitted a site under the original call for sites JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. It appears on the First Conversation Site Submission Map.

On review of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals documentation we have concerns that there has been an error in the assessment of this site.

On review of the HEELA in the First Proposals Document Library,:
• Site 40509 is Listed in Appendix 1 – Full List of Sites.
• It is not included in Appendix 2 which is the Not Deliverable/Developable lists. One therefore assumes it is considered to be a deliverable/developable site.
• A version of the site reference (40509a) appears in Appendix 3 which are the discounted sites, with the justification of it being a ‘duplicated site’.
• It appears in Appendix 4 with a detailed proforma showing it as having one Amber and two Green assessments – see attached extract.

In accordance with the information in the HEELA, we have then reviewed the Strategy Topic Paper. The Strategy Topic Paper confirms that all sites which met the Key Criteria for assessment should be:

‘• Locations with sustainable access: Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres, but also Group villages with very good Public Transport Access.
• Sites with a green or amber rating in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment’

both of which site 40509 complies with, being on the edge of Sawston which is a Rural Centre with good access to amenities and having met the Amber/Green HEELA threshold.

However, the Strategic Topic Paper makes no reference to site 40509. The site location falls under the ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’ section but does not appear in either the ‘New Allocations’, ‘Continuing Allocations’ or ‘Allocations Not Proposed to be Taken Forward’ subsections. As a new site which met the threshold for assessment within the Strategic Topic Paper, presumably it should be referenced somewhere as either included or not included?

The Strategic Topic Paper assessment refers to the need to continue with the allocation of site H/1:c. Site 40509 abuts Site H/1:C and could therefore reasonably be confused with being part of it. We had assumed the reference within the Appendix 3 of the HEELA to site 40509a being a duplicate was an administration error and that the site was inputted twice, however, with it not appearing within the Strategic Topic Paper, it appears that it has been confused as being part of Site H/1:C and therefore incorrectly removed from assessment going forward.

To address this issue and remove our objection:
• the site should be removed from the HEELA Appendix 3 as a duplicate.
• It should then appear within the Strategic Topic Paper as a site which meets the Key Criteria.
• It should appear in the assessment of ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’
• Based on the fact that it performs equally in terms of Amber and Red and is in a more sustainable location than some of the currently allocated sites within the Southern Rural Cluster, on the basis of the best performing sites being taken forward, it should be included as an allocated site.

Objection is raised in respect of the Councils’ policy on the ‘rest of the rural area’. It is considered that there is insufficient consideration being given to the long-term viability of rural settlements and their resident population. In order for Greater Cambridge to deliver a robust development strategy that meets the needs of its residents adequately, it is necessary for the LPA to provide an adequate quantum of development in the rural settlements. By adopting the approach currently proposed of limited levels of development being allocated in the rest of the rural area this would result in an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of balanced and mixed communities. As currently drafted, the policy approach is to propose some development in and around villages that have good transport links and services while in smaller villages only small-scale infill development is envisaged. This could lead to a trend of rural communities being threatened. New affordable and market housing should be allocated to rural settlements to ensure their long-term viability is protected. Investment should also be put into improving public transport links in the rural area rather than penalising those areas further where links are not up to standard.

Local residents in the rural areas MUST be listened to. Some residential developments of individual houses may be acceptable but must not destroy the rural beauty of these areas.

Objection is raised in respect of the Councils’ policy on the ‘rest of the rural area’. It is considered that there is insufficient consideration being given to the long-term viability of rural settlements and their resident population. In order for Greater Cambridge to deliver a robust development strategy that meets the needs of its residents adequately, it is necessary for the LPA to provide an adequate quantum of development in the rural settlements. By adopting the approach currently proposed of limited levels of development being allocated in the rest of the rural area this would result in an outcome that would run counter to the national policy objective of supporting and promoting the provision of balanced and mixed communities. As currently drafted, the policy approach is to propose some development in and around villages that have good transport links and services while in smaller villages only small-scale infill development is envisaged. This could lead to a trend of rural communities being threatened. New affordable and market housing should be allocated to rural settlements to ensure their long-term viability is protected. Investment should also be put into improving public transport links in the rural area rather than penalising those areas further where links are not up to standard.

The amount of development allocated within the First Proposals document for the rural area seems disproportionate and extremely low growth amount given the sustainable nodes of transport surrounding some of the rural villages. Cambourne has been allowed, and grown significantly along with Bourn Airfield where no current and effective public transport shuttle route is available. We believe the south west railway corridor area between Melbourn and Cambridge needs additional consideration as its own cluster. With the improvements within the Melbourn Greenway and also new proposed Travel Hubs at Foxton and the proposed Cambridge South West Travel Hub and new railway station for Addenbrookes we do not believe this option has been explored adequately. We request that this is given further consideration and additional growth proposed in this area where growth can easily be accommodated. This can be achieved without the same landscape impacts as proposed with the Green Belt release sites in the Rural Southern Cluster proposals.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment.

I support the avoidance of development where car travel is the easiest or only way to get around. If, for any reason, development is permitted in such places, the detailed location should be considered in relation to likely traffic flow. For example, in Balsham, most traffic is likely to be to and from Cambridge, so that development to the eastern end of the village would result in increased traffic through the whole village, and past the primary school.

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

The expansion of some rural areas (Cottenham in this example) has already been agreed but will suffer without the core B1049 route through Histon been addressed.

Further more, population projections used to justify the building of new schools must be looked at again within the rural area where a 2nd choice school could be more than a walk away hence making Car use more of a necessity.

see attached

Larger villages should not be expanded further. Villages are important part of this Country and they should remain so as not to lose identity.

Melbourn has, over the last 10 years or so expanded so much it is more akin to a small town. But the roads and infrastructure have not been upgraded accordingly and there is a lack of facilities such as local schools,. Dr's etc.

Map Fig 42: shows Existing and Proposed allocations outside this broad location, including North East Cambridge (Policy S/NEC).
It is noted that the corresponding Waste Water Treatment Works relocation process set out in Policy S/NEC is being led by Anglian Water under a separate process. However, map Fig 42 should also display for reference the proposed relocation site for the Waste Water Treatment Works in a similar manner to the NEC area, to provide proper context for the S/NEC Policy in terms of future land use and corresponding Green Belt cost, or neither until the DCO is approved.

Regret any loss of good farmland and countryside.

We strongly object to the proposed development strategy, and in particular the lack of site allocations for the rural areas. We consider that the suggested approach represents a lack of forward planning for existing village settlements, some of which are highly sustainable and represent excellent locations for growth. Existing village settlements make up a significant proportion of the Greater Cambridge area, and form the majority of South Cambridgeshire District. By adopting a reactive-only approach (windfalls-led), the Councils are restricting the opportunities for a genuinely plan-led approach to the development of these villages. We believe that this is in direct conflict with the policy set out in NPPF (paragraph 79), which sets out the following approach in relation to rural housing:
“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.”

In the context of the NPPF, we urge the Councils to review their policy approach in relation to the rural area.

Directing growth to villages that are well-located and have the potential to accommodate and benefit from growth should be a key element of the Local Plan’s spatial strategy for the period to 2041. The planned expansion of villages such as Hardwick could provide new housing whilst also boosting the local economy, creating the critical mass for improved services and facilities which in turn will assist in rejuvenation and creating an improved sense of place. This will also reduce the need to travel, promoting sustainable lifestyles and reducing the impact of development on the environment.

Identifying and allocating village extensions to well-located settlements such as Hardwick would serve to encourage the use of sustainable transport options without impacting on the Green Belt areas of greatest value. Hardwick benefits from existing bus services, cycling and walking routes. Accessibility will be further improved through the implementation of the Cambourne-to-Cambridge public transport project and potential linkages into the Greenways cycle network.

As set out in the NPPF (as above), sustainable development in rural areas is about locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The sustainable growth of villages through additional housing development can contribute to the footfall needed to support village services and facilities, reaching a critical mass that can support a vibrant village economy. This reduces the need to travel by private vehicle and also rejuvenates local areas and their communities. In addition, the allocation of medium- and large-scale residential sites ensures the delivery of much-needed affordable housing within villages, promoting mixed communities and providing for emerging housing needs. A lack of market housing in villages, or permitting only small-scale development, will perpetuate problems of restricted housing supply, increasing house prices and lack of provision for genuine local needs.

Likewise, the co-location of different land uses is another important consideration in making strategic policy decisions to shape travel choices. For example, where new residential developments in villages provide a mix of uses (employment, shops and cafes, community facilities and recreational spaces) or are located adjacent to existing services, this will facilitate residents to live, work and socialise within their own local area and community. This will reduce the need to travel into Cambridge or one of the towns for work, shopping, and other facilities. It will also have a positive impact in terms of sense of place, community, and wellbeing.

2.6 Rest of Rural Area (P122)

The Plan states that ‘We want our rural villages to continue to thrive and sustain their local services, but we don’t want to encourage lots of new homes in places where car travel is the easiest or only way to get around.’

As per the above, in terms of ensuring that rural villages ‘thrive’ we consider that the plan should be proactive in allocating some of the anticipated growth in the region to these village locations. Where development is considered important to contribute to the vitality of a village location, it is important that is it assessed against a series of criteria. Transportation will be an important factor in any such consideration obviously but in terms of sustainability this should not be the sole consideration. Equally, it should be recognised that village locations do still have access to bus facilities and this should be factored in consideration of any site. Indeed one key reason for managed growth in village locations is to further support and safeguard existing bus services.

Recommendation: The Plan must acknowledge the benefits of allowing a proportion of the plan period growth in rural areas and should proactively promote sites such as Long Lane, Fowlmere as appropriate locations for future development well placed to benefit from existing bus services and support the local community.

We support the allocation of sites in the rest of the rural area, as this will help sustain and enhance existing services and facilities such as school and shops on which local communities depend, as well as provide much needed affordable housing which meets local need.

We further support the objective to direct new housing growth across this area to locations which are not reliant on the private car. However, we question the very low number of new site allocations proposed, given existing and proposed sustainable transport choices in certain locations.
Some villages in the rest of the rural area are located on public transport corridors, and offer opportunities to bring forward new housing which supports local communities whilst achieving sustainable transport objectives. This is particularly the case for settlements in close proximity to Cambridge. Where such settlements also lie outside of the Green Belt it makes an even stronger rationale for allocating additional housing growth, where commuting via cycling is a realistic alternative.

The rural areas within Greater Cambridgeshire vary significantly in terms of their role and ability to successfully deliver sustainable growth. The evidence base should clearly acknowledge the different roles that parts of the district can play in the next plan.

We do not consider appropriate to differentiate between the ‘rest’ and the ‘rural southern cluster’ areas. We do not consider that sufficient rationale has been set out for this.

LVA supports policy which seeks to deliver new development in the most appropriate locations and encourage the Local Plan process to allocate sites not just at the main settlements, but also those lower down in the settlement hierarchy, such as Infill Villages and in particular the most sustainable villages within that classification. LVA consider the proposed approach to provide a limited amount of development in the rest of the rural area as too restrictive. The rural areas can play a key role in meeting housing requirements where development here will help ensure the vitality of these rural settlements and contribute towards local affordable housing needs.

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF supports this view and advocates housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. In line with paragraph 55 of the NPPF, it is vital to consider how sites would enhance the vitality of the rural community, and how, in line with paragraph 29, transport could play a role in facilitating sustainable development, contributing to wider sustainability.

The Local Plan should ensure that sufficient deliverable land is allocated in order to significantly boost the supply of housing and demonstrate that a supply of deliverable sites is indeed present. This should not just include sites in key settlements at the top of the settlement hierarchy, but sustainable settlements within the Infill Villages category.

Re: Rest of the Rural Area (Section 2.6).

Any development in the rest of the rural area should be absolutely minimised. The qualifier that some development is permitted within villages that have good transport links appears mis-guided. Cambridge city and new settlements have at least as good and generally better transport links, so this quality is not unique to villages. What is unique to villages is the ease with which their character can be completely ruined by over-development. This must be avoided at all costs.

The development strategy does not provide enough land within village locations to make a meaningful contribution to the housing trajectory or affordable housing provision. Given our concerns over the growth forecasts, the development strategy will need seek village growth locations of sufficient size to ensure the growth strategy is balanced and resilient. This should include housing and employment sites to reduce commuting pressures in and around Cambridge and bring further vitality to villages.

The suggested policy approach represents a lack of forward planning for existing village settlements, some of which are highly sustainable and represent excellent locations for growth.

We support the Council’s rational that ‘Providing a limited amount of development in the rest of the rural area can help meet the specific needs of specific employment sectors..’ (p122) This should apply to Dobbies Royston, and to other horticulture, nursery and garden centre developments within the Plan area. These provide valued employment, retail and leisure opportunities which provide a day out for all ages and promote gardening as a highly sustainable activity, which effectively enhances the wellbeing of the population. Indeed these aspects align with two of the proposed Local Plan’s four themes; biodiversity and green spaces and wellbeing and social inclusion.

Axis Land Partnerships wish to request that the spatial strategy described in Policy S/DS is amended to allow for the inclusion of Station Fields, Foxton. Please see Station Fields Representations Report, December 2021 (submitted under response to Policy S/DS) ID: 59040

Rest of the rural area - general comments 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.

We are concerned that much of the active travel comments refer to cycling. In our parish we have quite a few horse riders. It would be good to have more inclusion and consideration for bridleways and horse users.