S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area

Allocates sites for homes or employment in or adjoining villages and we agree with this approach, however, Land adjacent A1198, Caxton (51606) provides an opportunity to create a well located extension to Caxton with efficiently designed homes. The development will provide sensitively designed dwellings which will enhance the setting of the village along with providing much needed housing. This will also provide economic benefits through the construction jobs created and from owner/occupiers using local services and facilities.

As set out in paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF) medium sites such as Land adjacent A1198, Caxton will make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. There is significant demand for housing within Caxton given its proximity to Cambourne and Cambridge.

The NPPF 2021 sets out in paragraph 79 that 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 nearby villages. The Land adjacent A1198, Caxton (51606) is ideally placed in relation to Caxton and given its proximity to Cambourne lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire along with the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc and this site is suitable, deliverable and developable. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites and this site would be key to achieving this aim and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Allocates sites for homes or employment in or adjoining villages and we agree with this approach, however, Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton (Site ref: 40453) provides an opportunity to create a well located extension to Caxton with efficiently designed homes. The development will provide sensitively designed dwellings with infill plots to the west of the Telephone Exchange, on the existing site of number 30 Bourn Road which is being replaced and moved further east and another infill plot providing three dwellings in total which will retain the linear pattern of development on the opposite side of Bourn Road. There will be housing to the rear of 20 Bourn Road within the site and the sensitively designed dwellings will enhance the setting of the village along with providing much
needed housing. This will also provide economic benefits through the construction jobs created and from owner/occupiers using local services and facilities.

The site at Land south of Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 52991) is also ideally located and provides the opportunity to enable sensitively and efficiently designed homes which will enhance the character of the area. The site can provide a mixture of market, affordable and self-build housing and accommodate tree planting on the boundaries creating biodiversity net gain.

As set out in paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF) small and medium sites such as Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton and Land south of Bourn Road, Caxton will make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. There is significant demand for housing within Caxton given its proximity to Cambourne and Cambridge.

The NPPF 2021 sets out in paragraph 79 that 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 nearby villages. The Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 40453) and Land south of Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 52991) are ideally placed in relation to Caxton and given its proximity to Cambourne lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire along with the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc and these sites are suitable, deliverable and developable. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites and these sites would be key to achieving this aim and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Allocates sites for homes or employment in or adjoining villages and we agree with this approach, however, Land at St Peter’s Street, Caxton (40462) provides an opportunity to create a well located extension to Caxton with efficiently designed homes. The development will provide sensitively designed dwellings which will enhance the setting of the village along with providing much needed housing. This will also provide economic benefits through the construction jobs created and from owner/occupiers using local services and facilities.

As set out in paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF) medium sites such as Land at St Peter’s Street, Caxton will make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. There is significant demand for housing within Caxton given its proximity to Cambourne and Cambridge.

The NPPF 2021 sets out in paragraph 79 that 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 nearby villages. The Land at St Peter’s Street, Caxton (40462) is ideally placed in relation to Caxton and given its proximity to Cambourne lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire along with the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc and this site is suitable, deliverable and developable. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites and this site would be key to achieving this aim and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Regarding S/RRA/CR. How it is justified that Melbourn is once again targeted for development? No other villages in this immediate area seem to be under threat constantly. What little services we have here at at breaking point - we cannot even get covid vaccinations without having to travel right into the centre of Cambridge and all we have is a single bus service.

How does destroying yet more arable land fit in with the councils “green” agenda? Melbourn is becoming less and less of a “rural area” - just look at the land lost due to massive estates built on in New Road in the past couple of years. This not only affects our own quality of life, but also increases air pollution due to a higher concentrated population, as well as taking away the very thing we need to maintain air quality - nature. Not to mention the toll this is taking on our local wildlife.

Melbourn Science Park already causes a large influx of traffic and pollution on a daily basis and expanding it will make it even worse - one cannot assume that everyone who works there will be buying a new build right on the doorstep and fit in with the “ideal resident” according to a plan on paper. Additionally, the Melbourn Science Park is already undergoing a massive expansion project which is far from “green” - diesel lorries, countless cement mixers (cement/concrete being one of the worst products for damaging our environment), to and from the site every few minutes, 6 days a week.

A proposed estate on this land has already been turned down once and it should be again. Melbourn has taken its fair share of the burden in this area for too long. If the council wants us to look to a “green future”, then we need to be protecting fields and wildlife from constant destruction.

Allocates sites for homes or employment in or adjoining villages and we agree with this approach, however, Land off Brockholt Road, Caxton (Site ref: 40254) provides an opportunity to create a well located extension to Caxton with efficiently designed homes. The development will provide sensitively designed dwellings which will enhance the setting of the village along with providing much needed housing. This will also provide economic benefits through the construction jobs created and from owner/occupiers using local services and facilities.

As set out in paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF) medium sites such as Land off Brockholt Road, Caxton will make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area and can be built out quickly. There is significant demand for housing within Caxton given its proximity to Cambourne and Cambridge.

The NPPF 2021 sets out in paragraph 79 that 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 nearby villages. The Land off Brockholt Road, Caxton (Site ref: 40254) is ideally placed in relation to Caxton and given its proximity to Cambourne lends itself to be a highly sustainable location for future growth in Cambridgeshire along with the proposed new railway station at Cambourne as part of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc and this site is suitable, deliverable and developable. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should help to meet its housing need by having a combination of large and small sites and this site would be key to achieving this aim and enable sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

The site at Station Road is a hay meadow and is not intensively farmed, unlike most of the surrounding farmland. Consequently it supports a diverse range of wildlife which is not found elsewhere nearby. With around 97% of meadows lost since the 1930s, this site is clearly a rare and threatened habitat in need of protection.
Grasslands are also effective carbon sinks, and disturbing them can quickly release large quantities of sequestered carbon. Consequently the development of this site for housing would be both inconsistent with the environmental aims of the local plan (especially policies CC/CS and BG/BG), and directly at odds with the actions required following the declarations of a climate emergency by the district and county councils. For these reasons, we believe the development of this Greenbelt site would be unjustifiable.

Although the public transport links to the site are good, they will be no better than those in Northstowe. The 20 homes proposed at this site are just 0.2% of the intended total of Northstowe, the boundary of which comes within 50m of the site. An insignificant increase in the housing density of Northstowe would provide the same number of homes, without the additional environmental impact. Indeed, the same number of additional homes in Northstowe would perhaps result in fewer car journeys due to the more circuitous road route into Cambridge.

Whilst the proposals recognise the need to improve pedestrian links to the Busway, they do not consider the need for high-quality, off-road cycle access between Mill Road and the Busway. Station Road and Mill Road are important cycle links between the Busway and Oakington/Longstanton, but Station Road is relatively narrow, with poor visibility. The proposed development would necessitate an additional junction on this important link, which would materially increase the risk and reduce the desirability of cycle journeys along Station Road. Without mitigation, there is a real risk that attempting to increase the number of journeys by public transport by developing this site could result in a greater reduction in active travel journeys in the area.

In summary, we do not believe the claimed benefits of developing the Station Road site outweigh the environmental harm, especially given the possibility of achieving the same housing benefit at Northstowe. Furthermore, we believe there is a real risk that the unintended consequences of developing this site will directly undermine the stated environmental objectives of the local plan.

I have seen the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan, which proposes 20 homes to be built on land at the end of The Moor, Melbourn (incorrectly labelled as 'Moor Lane' on the plan) at site S/RRA/ML.
 
This is a highly inappropriate site for more development, especially one that runs directly counter to the Local Plan's stated aims to ""increase nature, wildlife and green spaces"" by building on Melbourn's last paddock.
 
Since [text redacted] 1999, 57 new dwellings have been built here, and another 29 on Moat Lane and Piggotts Close leading off the Moor. The Moorlands has been converted from a small nursing home into 35 independent living flats, and the Melbourn Village College has had new buildings added. I estimate there are over 300 more people living here than there were in 1999, all dependent on infrastructure designed for a school and a dozen houses. As a result the road is usually parked up between the Thatcher Stanford Close and the junction with High Street, leaving only a single lane open, the road is severely damaged from traffic, the pavement is damaged from cars and trucks pulling onto it. There is substantial pedestrian traffic up The Moor; children walking to the school, mothers and toddlers to the Little Hands Nursery and the children's playground, and retired people to the Bowls Club as well as residents of all ages. This combination of crowded vehicle traffic manoeuvring round densely parked cars and over pavements, a narrow and congested junction and heavy pedestrian traffic is already not safe. More houses built will only make it worse. Power cuts are frequent as the infrastructure is stressed (we are on a small 'spur' line), and broadband is very poor as too many connections are channelling down through one small sub-connection.
 
I understand we need more houses. My children are young adults facing the enormous cost of housing in Cambridgeshire. But this is not the place to put them without very substantial investment: installing traffic lights at the junction between The Moor and the High Street, upgrading infrastructure, and repairing the road and improving the pavement along *all* of The Moor, not just at the site of new housing.
 
Ideally, the Local Plan should find somewhere else to put the houses.

On behalf our clients representations were submitted to the issues and options consultation of the LP to remove land at Thorpe, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge from the greenbelt, as it serves no greenbelt purpose. The representation asks to allocate the site for residential development/care home.

The councils assessment of the site is within the HELAA 40325 and we have supplied additional details on site access and impact on the highway network to respond to the red flags on the HELAA form, we have submitted this information separately under the site additional information section of the GCLP – reference number: LBFGMWN.

These sites must have reliable/frequent public transport system (hourly) to a local transport hub/nearby market town/or train station.

Ref: S/RRA/MF Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road, Oakington.
We are completely opposed to this development being included in the Local Plan.
We believe that the environmental destruction that will result from this proposed development far outweighs any suggested speculative benefit outlined in the site assessment. This will clearly result in increased traffic flows through the village which is already overburdened and there is no evidence to suggest that any new residents will use the Busway for commuting or other purposes.
The land provides an essential flood buffer for much of Oakington and the whole of Westwick. (We have photographic evidence to show December 2020 flooding in that area.). Flood controls are already under considerable pressure and this development will worsen that situation. Furthermore, current levels of development (including the adjacent Northstowe) are leaving only fragments of green space in and around the Oakington area. These must be protected at all costs.
We are at a complete loss as to how this Greenbelt site could possibly have been selected from nearly 700 sites in the Greater Cambridge area and challenge the justification for its inclusion. We do not agree that proximity to the Busway stop and enhancing the approach to the stop for residents provides the 'exceptional circumstances required for Greenbelt release'

policy S/RRA site SAS.

Lolworth Parish Meeting understands why such a development is being proposed but is strongly opposed to the loss of any green belt land. Thus we believe any development should be restricted to the area south of Cambridge Services previously used as a compound for the A14 roadworks, with the southern boundary being the hedge/ditch line as it currently exists. We are opposed to any development on the land owned by the University of Cambridge. We are also aware there is a proposal by Jaynic to include the field east of the Services as part of their promotion agreement. Should further land be required, we believe there is further brownfield land adjacent to the Services roundabout which would be better suited to this type of development and which would preserve existing farm land. We therefore would not support any development that included this land.
We are pleased to note the proposed preservation of the rural countryside character and believe development on only brownfield land would contribute significantly to this proposal. Noise within the village of Lolworth is significantly increased as a result of the recent A14 development and any further increase should be minimised. A substantial new tree belt would be a welcome mitigation. We would also urge that measures are taken to ensure that the mistakes made by those who planted vegetation as part of the A14 development scheme (as a result of planting at the wrong time of year, almost all the trees planted died within a few months) are not repeated.
Access to Yarmouth Farm, which lies between Lolworth and Boxworth is limited to two options. Machinery either has to be brought through the village of Lolworth via Robins Lane which in places is insufficiently wide for two cars to pass let alone heavy agricultural machinery. Alternatively, and the route currently favoured by the agricultural contractors, is from the Boxworth Road. Should the development proceed as currently proposed, this access will be denied. A new access could be constructed closer to Boxworth but this would be close to 100 metres from a sharp bend in the road with the associated safety issues. Whatever the solution, it is imperative that access both to the proposed development and to Yarmouth Farm is provided from the Boxworth Road; Robins Lane is totally unsuitable for large vehicles.

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

2. Our client is promoting two parcels of land for residential development at Orwell, South Cambridgeshire. The sites were both previously promoted through the March 2019 and February 2020 consultation stages associated with the preparation of the GCLP. The two sites are referenced in the HELAA as follows: Land to the north east of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell (Ref: 40383) and Land to the south west of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell (Ref: 40378).

3. Our client welcomes the publication of the HELAA review which appraises the development potential of the site. However, our client has noted a number of specific technical flaws in the published appraisals which should be remedied as the GCLP preparation continues.

4. As set out in our previous representations masterplanning and technical work has been prepared to support the promotion of both sites for residential development. This work very much remains valid and robust. At this time, we are now also able to provide further technical evidence to support the promotion of the Site 40383. Please find attached to these representations the following documents:

a. Transport – Technical Note (Cannon Consulting Engineers)
b. Flood Risk Assessment (Cannon Consulting Engineers)
c. Preliminary Ecological Assessment (James Blake Associates)

5. In light of our review of the HELAA appraisal and our client’s site specific technical work we attach as a separate sheet a schedule of the HELAA inaccuracies and recommended amendments.

6. This set of representations has demonstrated that the proposed GCLP Development Strategy is flawed in its approach to supporting economic growth, providing a robust housing supply and supporting the long-term vitality of established sustainable rural settlements.

(See attachment)

7. In reviewing and amending the GLCP’s overall housing need requirement and development strategy it is strongly recommended that our client’s sites are allocated for residential development. Both of our client’s site are suitable and deliverable with only very limited development constraints (which can be overcome through planning conditions and careful design). The sites are located at a settlement which has been found to be sustainable location for residential development by a Planning Inspector at Appeal in 2017.

S/RRA/ML The Moor, Moor Lane, Melbourn
We are pleased to confirm that Land at the Moor remains both available and deliverable and that we, and our client, would be pleased to work with the Council in the progression of this site.
The emerging Local Plan retains Melbourn’s position as a Minor Rural centre, offering a range of shops, services and public transport provision, all of which continues to support the delivery of our client’s site.
Please see attached our representation in full, along with confirmation of the site's availability, and details of a highways assessment of the site.

Notwithstanding my comments above about the need to absolutely minimise any development in the rest of the rural area, I do not object to any of the specific allocations proposed within the First Proposals.

What I (and many many others I know that do not have the time to respond to such a hugely detailed consultation) do object to is:

• In general, allocations that would impact the Green Belt in any way
• A set of specific site proposals that have been rejected by SCDC, but would cause untold harm if they were ever to be incorporated as part of this or any future local plan.


In relation to the first point, the First Proposals state that: “The Councils consider that the carbon benefits of locating homes close to existing opportunities for very high quality sustainable travel, could provide the exceptional circumstances required to justify removing land from the Green Belt in this location but only if considered alongside the environmental impacts.” I fundamentally disagree with this point for the reasons set out in my general comments on the rest of the rural area. “Exceptional circumstances” should be just that, not “these locations happen to have nearly as good transport links as other site locations that do not form part of the Green Belt”.

In relation to the second point above, the specific site proposals I refer to are those with site references / JDI numbers as follows:

• 40041 – Kings Gate site, Villa Road, Impington
• 40232 – Land west of South Road, Impington
• 40236 – Land north-east of Villa Road, Impington
• 40239 – Kingsgate Land off Villa Road, Impington

Each of these self-serving site proposals would cause significant damage to the local community and environment and none offer anything that cannot be far better achieved at other site locations (as the First Proposals appear to correctly recognise). Main concerns common to these sites include:

• All lie wholly (or at least 98% or more) on Green Belt land
• All would result in material damage to the Landscape and Townscape, resulting in a Red flag for this criterion in the HELAA report in all 4 cases. As noted by the HELAA report, this area of Green Belt land is “typical” of the “Fen Edge” character, and there is no getting away from the fact that a development of any of these sites would cause this to be lost.
• All would result in a huge relative increase in traffic volumes on currently quiet residential roads (potentially through the South Road play area (destroying green open space) or Villa Road – both areas where small children play). The HELAA report recognises this through assigning Red or Amber flags for Site Access in all 4 cases.
• All would add further pressure on water and drainage in an area already prone to flooding (as the HELAA report notes, with Red or Amber flags)
• All would contribute to increased traffic load on the A14 North bypass (a strategic highway that is already over capacity), as the HELAA report recognises in assigning a Red flag to all 4 proposals in relation to the Strategic Highways Impact constraint. No matter what self-serving arguments land-owners put forward, it is a simple fact that large new developments of the type proposed in these areas cannot possibly lead to a net zero increase on traffic on the Strategic Highways, therefore these sites would appear to be worthy of automatic disqualification (all other issues, of which there are a lot, put aside)
• All would place more pressure on existing facilities such as the local GP and schools
• Two of the four site proposals are for 450 and 700 new houses (40232 and 40239 respectively). These large scale developments would be totally out of keeping with the rest of the village.

Taking each of these sites in turn, I provide a high-level summary of objections. I am happy to provide further details as required.

40041 receives a red flag from HELAA for flood risk. This is entirely correct, particularly given the Darwin Green development in Cambridge, that will already lead to increased flood risk in this specific area of Impington. This floor risk not only relates to new houses built on this land, but would also increase the risk for other nearby housing. Proposals from the land owners to mitigate this are inadequate, not least since there would be no obligation whatsoever for any mitigation measures to be maintained after the development was completed. Hence the problem is added to on an ongoing basis, but no ongoing solution (to the extent that there would be one) is offered.

For some reason the flag assigned for Site Access is only Amber (rather than Red). There seems to be an assumption that access via Villa Road is possible, but with the construction of two new self-build houses (perhaps only started since the publication of the HELAA report), this assessment now appears out of date. Moreover, the concern raised above about turning Villa Road, where children play and which has a blind corner, into a mainstream access road to a new housing estate (of any size) is important. Site Access simply cannot be achieved safely here and a Red flag is certainly required.

40232 suggests an outrageous 450 new homes on Green Belt land, totally disregarding the Histon & Impington Neighbourhood plan, which clearly states a maximum development size of 50 houses. Such an estate would be total out of character with the village and serve only to further line the pockets of NIAB, its estate agents and any developer it sells its land (at astronomical profit) to.

This notwithstanding, even a smaller development on this site would still be totally unacceptable for the reasons provided through 3 Red and 6 Amber flags in the HELAA report, amongst others. The flood risk is in this case assessed as Amber despite 29% being sited in a 1 in 100-year event flood area – given the increasing frequency of such events due to climate change, it is in fact likely to be much more than 29% and more frequently than once in the next 100 years: this should be a Red flag.

Transport and Roads is flagged Amber, though (akin to Strategic Highways Impact, which is flagged Red) it is unclear why this assessment is not also Red. There would be a huge impact on local residential streets, the B1049 as well as the strategic A10 and A14, which has “No capacity for growth”. Site Access though is rightly rated as a Red flag. The idea of creating a major transport route through the northern end of a children’s play area (one of what is already too few open spaces in Histon & Impington) is appalling, without even considering how narrow this road would be. The suggestion would be laughable were NIAB and its agents not actually serious in their outrageous proposition.

40236 again rightly receives the same Red flags for Landscape and Townscape and Flood Risk, as well as Site Access (i.e. there is none). For the same reasons as above, this proposal would also create an unacceptable traffic burden on local residential streets and nearby strategic roads.

40239 is however the most egregious of the 4 site proposals. It combines 40041 and 40232 to create a larger site, yet somehow the proposed number of houses increase from an aggregate of 500 for the two separate sites to a whopping 700. No logic for this further increase appears to have been offered. The HELAA appears particularly flawed in relation to this site as it classes the flood risk as only being Amber when it is Red for 40041 in isolation. One can only assume this relates to the density of housing across the whole site, but ultimately there would not be fewer than 50 houses built on the 40041 site under this proposal because the total number of planned houses is greater than the aggregate proposed under 40041 and 40232. In particular, since the two constituent sites are owned by different companies, the owners of 40041 will still want to see at least 50 units on their portion of the site, which is already enough to warrant a Red flag in the separate assessment of that site. The fact that there would be 650 additional houses on the combined site cannot possibly reduce the flood risk from Red to Amber: in fact it exacerbates it, making the requirement for a Red flag classification all the more clear.

Site access is flagged Amber, but as explained for 40041, this appears outdated and should now be Red. Whilst the impact on Transport and Roads of such a big site must now surely be upgraded to Red flag status.

In all cases, the fact they lie (almost) entirely on Green Belt land should constitute a Red flag, but as is described in relation to policy GP/GB, the HELAA does not seem to adequately take this into account. All 4 sites receive an Amber flag for the “Adopted Development Plan Policies” criterion, which mentions the Green Belt. If impact on the Green Belt is intended to be captured here then the flag should be Red.

As a general point regarding the HELAA, it seems that obtaining 1 or more Red flags is the disqualification threshold for a site, so Amber flags seem in the end to count for nothing. All 4 of the above sites contain between 2 and 4 Red flags in addition to between 6 and 9 Amber flags. The total number of Red and Amber flags is 10 or 11 in all cases, so the one site with only 2 Red flags contains 9 Amber flags, though as argued above more of these should in fact be Red. However, the point is that were a site not to have any Red flags, but had 6-9 Amber flags, it would surely not in practice be a suitable site for development. The Amber flags should cumulatively form an additional disqualification criteria, such that whilst 1 Red flag is cause for disqualification, the same should be true for 2 or more Amber flags. On a site with 2 Red flags and 9 Amber flags, this would mean that there are in fact 6 separate reasons for disqualification (each by itself sufficient to require disqualification) – i.e. each of the 2 Red flags plus 4 additional pairs of Amber flags.

Finally, I note that a response to the 2020 First Conversation consultation from agents Strutt & Parker, on behalf of NIAB, makes various additional comments on the site proposals (40232, 40236 and 40239). These comments are once again entirely self-serving and seek to promote even greater scales of development in the Greater Cambridge area, a fundamental revaluation of the Green Belt (since it does not suit their specific purpose, but without any regard for the purpose it does continue to serve) and make various comments about encouraging walking and cycling in an effort to partially mitigate the impact their developments would have on strategic highways (whilst in no way offering any evidence as to why they would offer a net zero increase in traffic – which they can’t offer because it is simply not true). This response makes no effort and offers no evidence to address any of the fundamental concerns raised by the HELAA report (or those missed by the HELAA report) including on site access, flood risk, traffic increases etc.

These sites appear to fall so far short of any reasonable threshold for inclusion in the local plan that they are worthy of no further consideration whatsoever, now or in the future.

Boxworth Parish Response to SCDC Local Plan
S/RRA/SAS Land to South of the A14 Services

Boxworth Parish objects strongly to the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan. In the development of the A14 it was always clearly stated that the site of the construction compound and accommodation block was a temporary permission and that at the end of the scheme the site would revert back to its original agricultural use. Therefore, the fact that part of the site has been temporarily used as a construction compound is irrelevant and the whole site must be classed as greenfield land. Otherwise, any permission granted for temporary use, on the clear understanding that at the end of the usage period it would revert to its original state, can be used as a Trojan Horse to obtain permanent planning permission on the basis that the status of the land has changed. This subverts the whole planning process.
Boxworth parish did not object to the construction compound because the parish received numerous reassurances from Highways England that their need was temporary and eventually the land would revert back to agricultural use. If the parish had known that there was a chance that the temporary use would become permanent then the parish would have probably objected. This latest proposal smacks of duplicitousness towards Boxworth Parish.
In addition to the issue of the construction compound the proposed site incorporates part of the neighbouring field which has never been developed. In a meeting with the developer it was stated that, if this additional land was not included, the site would still be viable so there is no rationale for extending the boundary of the site beyond the confines of the construction compound.
The entrance to the attractive, rural village of Boxworth has already been degraded by the development of Cambridge Services, the Buckingway Industrial Park and the expansion of the road infrastructure serving the A14 junction. This proposal would extend that industrialisation further up Boxworth Rd reducing the separation between commercial activity and the start of the village at Grapevine Cottages. It would appear more sensible, if there has to be further industrialisation around the junction, to use the ex-construction compound on the other side of Boxworth Rd. This would geographically constrain the commercial expansion closer to the junction and remove any creep up Boxworth Rd. The south side of such a development would match the southern extent of the Services providing a more balanced overall impression. In the call for sites this area was put forward for commercial development and although the proposed scheme was larger it is likely that discussions with the sponsor could have arrived at a similar sized project to that proposed now.
The main objection to this scheme relates to the total unacceptability of any further traffic accessing the Cambridge Services roundabout. Since the lorry park at the Services has been re-sited so that its entrance and exit is located so that it feeds directly into the entrance single carriageway for all traffic onto the site traffic mayhem has resulted.
The problem is that lorries are often delayed entering the narrow lorry park and lorries exiting the park have to cross across non-commercial traffic accessing their parking area immediately after the lorry park entrance. Both situations lead to significant tail backs to the roundabout and the slip roads off the A14. All of these roads are single lane carriageways and once blocked there is no access to Boxworth village. This has resulted in long delays for villagers trying to get back to their homes on numerous occasions. The access to the proposed site lies up Boxworth Rd and would increase substantially the volume of traffic entering the roundabout and thus would intensify an already intolerable situation.
Originally it was proposed that the exit from the new lorry park would pass behind the hotel and thus avoid the site entrance altogether. This would reduce a lot of the current congestion.
The strip of land behind the hotel at the services was included In the original call for sites and if this was included as part of this proposed scheme then this could incorporate an exit from the lorry park and also provide an alternative entrance into the site from the long slip road off the A14, thus obviating the need for the arriving traffic having to use the roundabout at all.
If the scheme proceeds then it is vital that there is strong visual and ecological mitigation to minimise the impact on the entrance to Boxworth. Within the constraints identified in the plan Boxworth Parish welcomes the requirement for a 25m landscape buffer on all site boundaries and the requirement for the preservation of the rural countryside character. The parish also supports the requirement that the density of the development reflects the density and pattern of non-residential development in the nearby village of Boxworth. It is assumed this relates to the number and height of any buildings proposed. It is very important that there is no dilution of these requirements if approval is granted.
One of the most important issues facing Boxworth is achieving a cycleway between the village and the new NMU bridge over the A14. If this major development goes ahead with its adverse impact on Boxworth village then the parish would ask that Section 106 funds be applied to the funding of the cycleway.

Noon Folly Farm, Land north of A14 Bar Hill.
Representation on behalf of Queens’ College, Cambridge(HELAA site 40121)
Proposed Employment allocation 51.34 ha for B1c, B2 and B8 Use.

Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Parish Council has declared a climate emergency. In the HELAA, we agree with the red classification of the 16 [of 20] sites already identified as red in the parish [40020, 40106, 40202, 40203, 40204, 40227, 40228, 40230, 40311, 40328, 40330, 40342, 40398, 40560, 40105, 40299] [a] since sufficient housing has already been identified elsewhere, [b] due to the amount of windfall development that has already taken place in the parish and [c] for lack of sustainability and the transport-related emissions for travel out of the area to work. We consider that the four sites [of 20] classified as amber [40073, 40164, 40216 and 40463] should be classified as red for the same reasons and due to the adverse impact on the road network. Additionally we are concerned about the loss of woodland if site 40216 were to be developed.

Site S/RRA/MF in Oakington should not be included. The green belt here is more important than ever due to the minimal separation of Northstowe from the village (which was not as originally promised.) Building up on both sides of Oakington is not safeguarding its heritage and landscape (ref. “Vision”). The field adjacent to the site regularly floods. These 20 houses are a tiny part of the overall plan but the development will have a big negative impact in a village already hugely affected by Northstowe. Greenbelt release is not justifiable.

Oakington and Westwick Parish Council object to the inclusion of S/RRA/MF (Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road) as a development for 20 houses.
1. The proposed site is within the Green Belt. We object to any development in the green belt. Acceptance that certain areas of green belt can be used for development will lead to large amounts of green belt land being used for development in the longer term. The Green Belt should be kept in its entirety.
2. The proposed site is within 100 metres of the boundary of Northstowe, which will comprise of 10,000 homes. It is difficult to see any justification for an additional 20 homes beyond this boundary.
3. We are concerned that if 20 houses are allowed on this site, a precedent will be set for additional numbers of houses in Oakington and Westwick.
4. This area of land is adjacent to a flood risk area.
5. There is significant archaeological work which would need to be done before any construction. This would make 20 houses uneconomical.
6. The site falls outside the Northstowe Development Area
7. The results of the traffic flow evaluation conducted on behalf of Homes England for the Northstowe development show that Oakington will reach saturation point within the next five years.
8. We do not accept that the existence of a guided busway stop near the proposed site justifies the construction of additional housing, given the sheer scale of Northstowe and the destruction of green belt land.

This policy is considered to only illustrate further the lack of distribution in housing sites across villages within South Cambridgeshire. The vast majority of proposed allocations are carried forward, with only 3 new residential allocations and a single new mixed use allocation. The residential allocations propose a total of 104 homes and the mixed use allocation of 120 homes. This is considered to be a small additional contribution to housing allocations in the entirety of the rural area. As such further consideration should be given to the delivery of housing in Teversham.

(Minerals and Waste) S/RRA/ML – All within a MSA for chalk. The site is adjacent to residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/MF – All within a MSA for sand & gravel. WWLP Site is adjacent to residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/CR – All within a MSA for chalk. Situated between Melbourn Science Park and residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RRA/BBP – Within CA for Uttons Drove Water Recycling Area (WRA). MWLP Policy 16 applies.

Madingley Mulch HELAA site ref: 40158 land at Madingley Mulch off A428.

Response on behalf of RO Property Management Ltd to preferred options policy S/RRA.

Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area / Policy S/RRA: Allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area

OBJECT

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land at Bury End Farm in Meldreth would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the convenience store, public house, and bus and train services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land at Bury End Farm in Meldreth are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 105 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. There is a train station at Meldreth providing services to Cambridge and London. Meldreth is also on a bus route with services to Royston. The Greater Cambridge Partnership has identified a potential rural travel hub at the railway station, which would provide additional cycle parking facilities. The site promoted by Hastingwood Developments at Bury End Farm in Meldreth is accessible to all of the services and facilities in the village by walking, cycling and public transport. As such, there are realistic alternatives to the car for travel to and from Meldreth.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 36 affordable dwellings in Meldreth for those with a local connection to the village. This identified need would not be met without allocations in Meldreth. The promoted development by Hastingwood Developments at Bury End Farm in Meldreth would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village.

For all these reasons, small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Meldreth, because those villages are accessible by sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within those villages, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in those villages which would not be met via other means.

The land at Bury End Farm in Meldreth is partly previously developed land and the existing buildings would be demolished to accommodate the promoted development. The existing turkey factory operation would be relocated to an alternative site. The relocation of the existing use from the site would provide benefits to the neighbouring residents and to the village in terms of removing noise, odour, and traffic movements.

Hastingwood Developments’ representations to the assessment of the Bury End Farm site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 40284) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, there are no significant constraints to development at Bury End Farm in Meldreth, and there are substantial benefits associated with the relocation of the existing turkey factory operation from the site.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes an additional allocation in Meldreth at Bury End Farm.

It is requested that land at Bury End Farm, off North End in Meldreth is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 2.41 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 70 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build
• Development should address the following constraints:
o Demolition of No.44 North End to create an upgraded site access
o Landscaping at southern and south western boundaries
o Avoid harm to significance of heritage assets

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.

A summary of why it is claimed that site 40509 has incorrectly been omitted from the Local Plan 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.

Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area / Policy S/RRA: Allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area

OBJECT

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land west of Malton Road in Orwell would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the village store and post office, public house, and existing and future bus services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land west of Malton Road in Orwell are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 105 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. The services and facilities and businesses within Orwell are all accessible by walking and cycling. There is a currently a limited bus service to Cambridge from Orwell, but the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes a more frequent rural bus service including for Orwell. There is a train station at Shepreth.
As such, there will be realistic alternatives to the car for travel to and from Orwell once the Making Connections project has been delivered.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 12 affordable dwellings in Orwell for those with a local connection to the village. This identified need would not be met without allocations in the village. The promoted development by CEMEX at land west of Malton Road in Orwell would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village and a proportion of self/custom build housing plots.

For all these reasons, small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Orwell, because those villages are accessible by sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within those villages, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in those villages which would not be met via other means.

The CEMEX representations to the assessment of the land west of Malton Road site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 40324) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, the watercourse, hedgerows, and trees at the site would be retained and enhanced, additional landscaping would be provided on the southern boundary of the site, there is sufficient land within the site to provide open space and green infrastructure, and a new vehicular access can be provided directly off Malton Road. As set out above, there is a good range of services and facilities in Orwell, and the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes improvements to the bus service from the village. The more recent developments in Orwell are also located to the south of the High Street and Orwell Conservation Area e.g. off Town Green Road, Leaden Hill, Stocks Lane, and Lotfield Street.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes an additional allocation in Orwell at land west of Malton Road.

It is requested that land west of Malton Road in Orwell is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 8.78 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 155 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build plots
• Delivery of open space and green infrastructure
• Development should address the following constraints:
o Strategic landscaping at southern boundary
o Avoid harm to adjacent Orwell Conservation Area

Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area / Policy S/RRA: Allocations in Rest of the Rural Area

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a very good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village. Histon fall within this category.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at off Cottenham Road in Histon would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the supermarkets and other small convenience stores and shops, post office, library, public houses and restaurants, bank, and bus services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small sized sites such as land off Cottenham Road in Histon is allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. There is a stop at Histon on the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Histon is connected to Cambridge and Ely by a frequent bus service. There are existing on and off-road cycle routes within Histon and to and from neighbouring areas. Histon is a sustainable location in transport terms, and additional development in this location would be consistent with Paragraph 104.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 58 affordable dwellings in Histon for those with a local connection to the village. This identified need would not be met without allocations in the village. The promoted development by Mr Meadows at land off Cottenham Road in Histon would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village, and could include a proportion of self/custom build housing plots or community land trust housing.

For all these reasons, additional small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Histon, because it is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, it is well related to employment opportunities, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the villages which would not be met via other means.

Mr Meadows’ representations to the assessment of the land off Cottenham Road in Histon site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 40526) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, there is an existing access to the site, but as an alternative No.113 Cottenham Road could be demolished to create a vehicular access. The site makes limited contribution to the landscape character, and makes limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes an additional residential allocation at land r/o 113 Cottenham Road in Histon, with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 0.72 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 22 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build plots or community land trust housing
• Retain adjacent woodland
• Provide green infrastructure
• New vehicular access following demolition of No.113 Cottenham Road
• Retain existing access

OBJECT

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development by the Elbourn Family at land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the convenience store, public house, and bus and train services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 105 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. There is a train station at Meldreth providing services to Cambridge and London. Meldreth is also on a bus route with services to Royston. The Greater Cambridge Partnership has identified a potential rural travel hub at the railway station, which would provide additional cycle parking facilities. The site promoted by the Elbourn Family at land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth is accessible to all of the services and facilities in the village by walking, cycling and public transport. As such, there are realistic alternatives to the car for travel to and from Meldreth.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 36 affordable dwellings in Meldreth for those with a local connection to the village – see https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/18316/affordable-housing-housing-statistical-information-leaflet-december-2019.pdf. This identified need would not be met without allocations in Meldreth. The promoted development by the Elbourn Family at land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village.

For all these reasons, small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Meldreth, because those villages are accessible by sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within those villages, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in those villages which would not be met via other means.

The Elbourn Family’s representations to the assessment of the land off Fenny Lane site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 40036) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, the watercourse, hedgerows, and trees at the site would be retained and enhanced, additional landscaping would be provided on the northern boundary of the site, and the existing footways would need to be upgraded. An amended plan is submitted with the representations to the HELAA site assessment to include the existing access from Fenny Lane at the eastern edge of the site to provide a secondary access into the promoted development.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes an additional allocation in Meldreth at land off Fenny Lane.

It is requested that land off Fenny Lane in Meldreth is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 4 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 100 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build
• Development should address the following constraints:
o Main access adjacent to No.12 Fenny Lane
o Landscaping at northern boundary
o Retain and enhance watercourse at western boundary
o Avoid harm to significance of heritage assets

Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area / Policy S/RRA: Allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area

OBJECT

It is considered that the growth of the villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages such as Great Chishill where there are planned improvements to the rural bus service and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village. It should be noted that more people are working at home, at least for part of the week, and this trend is likely to continue which means people will commute less often for work. The phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles and the requirement for new residential developments to include electric vehicle charging points should help to improve air quality.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the public house and existing and future bus services. There is a currently a limited bus service from Great Chishill to Royston and Cambridge, but the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes a more frequent rural bus service from the village to provide realistic alternatives to the car in the future.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 9 affordable dwellings in Great Chishill and Little Chishill for those with a local connection to the villages. This identified need would not be met without allocations in the village. The promoted development by RO Group at land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village.

For all these reasons, small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Great Chishill, because the village will have a better bus service in the future, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the village which would not be met via other means.

The RO Group representations to the assessment of the land south of Hall Lane site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 47879) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. The call for sites submission referred to three potential sites, but only the land south of Hall Lane is now promoted for residential development. In summary, the land south of Hall Lane represents and infill site between existing housing, there are no heritage, landscape or ecological constraints associated with this site and existing trees and hedgerows could be retained and enhanced, an access can be provided on to Hall Lane, and the bus service in the village is due to be improved in the future to improve accessibility by sustainable modes of transport.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes an additional allocation in Great Chishill at land south of Hall Lane.

It is requested that land south of Hall Lane in Great Chishill is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 0.69 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 21 dwellings, including affordable housing
• Retain and enhance existing trees and hedgerows
• Provide access from Hall Lane

Section 2.6: Rest of Rural Area

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable and community land trust housing.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted developments by Cambridge District Oddfellows at land at Two Mill Fields and at land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the supermarket and convenience stores, post office, library, public houses, restaurant/takeaway, and existing and future bus services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. It is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land at Two Mill Field and land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 105 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. The services and facilities and businesses within Cottenham are all accessible by walking and cycling. Cottenham is currently connected to Cambridge by frequent bus services. The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project proposes substantial improvements to the bus services for Cottenham, including a bus every 10 minutes to Cambridge via Histon, a more frequent service to Oakington (including the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway stop), and a more frequent rural service to Chatteris via Wilburton, Haddenham, Sutton and Mepal. As such, realistic alternatives to the car for travel to and from Cottenham exist, and bus services will be improved in the future once the Making Connections project has been delivered.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 52 affordable dwellings in Cottenham for those with a local connection to the village. It is acknowledged that most of the current need for affordable housing would be met by recent planning permissions, but there will be future affordable housing needs that arise in the future and sustainable villages such as Cottenham should seek to meet district-wide affordable housing needs too. It is noted that Cottenham Community Land Trust have not yet brought forward a scheme and may be having difficulty finding a suitable site. The promoted developments by Cambridge District Oddfellows at land at Two Mill Field and land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham could include a proportion of land for a community land trust scheme, in conjunction with a development for housing and affordable housing if the site is allocated in emerging GCLP.

For all these reasons, small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the rest of the rural area, including Cottenham, because those villages are accessible by sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within those villages, and there is an identified need for affordable and community land trust housing in those villages.

The Cambridge District Oddfellows representations to the assessments of the land at Two Mill Field (Site Ref. 40419) and land north of Oakington Road (Site Ref. 40417) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted developments and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, and for both sites, the promoted developments would include additional landscaping at the site boundaries, green infrastructure, and biodiversity enhancement measures. It is noted that land adjacent to both sites have been promoted through the call for sites process of the emerging GCLP, and it should be possible to deliver a coordinated development if a number of neighbouring sites were allocated too e.g. strategic landscaping, open space, access arrangements, footway provision etc. The planned improvements to the bus services in Cottenham as part of Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project should provide realistic alternatives to the car for some journeys and reduce the impact on the strategic highway network.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the rest of the rural area includes additional allocations in Cottenham.

It is requested that land at Two Mill Field in Cottenham is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 3.24 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 90 dwellings, including affordable housing, self/custom build plots and a proportion of community land trust housing
• Delivery of open space and green infrastructure
• Landscaping at boundaries
• Northern boundary compatible with permitted residential development (Ref. S/2876/16/OL)

It is requested that land north of Oakington Road in Cottenham is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 2.36 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 90 dwellings, including affordable housing, self/custom build plots and a proportion of community land trust housing
• Delivery of open space and green infrastructure
• Landscape buffer at northern and western boundaries

HELAA site ref 40375 Map 75 Land at 3 Hills Farm, Ashdon rd, Bartlow.

Representation on behalf of The Bartlow Estate to Draft Policy S/RRA for small site residential allocation of 1ha (inc affordable housing and open space).

Response to red flags on Historic Environment and Accessibility to Services and Facilities for the following reasons - see attachment.