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

Comment

Representation ID: 56483

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Victor Chapman

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

Land adjacent A1198, Caxton (HELAA site 51606)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56492

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David & Brian Searle

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton (HELAA Site 40453) / Land south of Bourn Road, Caxton (HELAA site 52991)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56501

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Mr William Grain

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

Land at St Peter’s Street, Caxton (HELAA site 40462)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56506

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Hartley

S/RRA/CR Land to the west of Cambridge Road, Melbourn

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56519

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: R J & J S Millard

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

Land off Brockholt Road, Caxton (HELAA Site 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56556

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Garsed

S/RRA/MF Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road, Oakington

Mansel Farm Oakington site is a biodiverse hay meadow, thus both a threatened habitat and important carbon sink. Development inconsistent with plan aims, especially policies CC/CS and BG/BG, as well as councils' climate emergency declarations. Release of this site from greenbelt therefore unjustifiable.

Similar additional development in Northstowe would achieve same aims without environmental impact and perhaps encourage fewer car journeys.

Plans consider only improving pedestrian, not cycle access from Oakington/Longstanton to busway in plans. Real risk additional junction and increased traffic would make pedestrian and cycle journeys worse, reducing number of active/public transport journeys in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 56559

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Dr William Bains

S/RRA/ML The Moor, Melbourn

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan proposes 20 homes to be built on land at the end of The Moor, Melbourn at site S/RRA/ML. This is a highly inappropriate site for more development, especially one that builds on a greenfield site. The road is over-crowded with heavy parking, car and delivery traffic, and child and elderly pedestrian traffic, an accident waiting to happen. Infrastructure is stretched and suited to far fewer than the number of houses already built there in the last 20 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 56561

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Calder

Agent: Bidwells

Land at Thorpe, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge (HELAA site 40325)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56587

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Gamlingay Parish Council

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

Comment

Representation ID: 56673

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Lawrence

RRA/MF Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road, Oakington

We strongly object to the inclusion of site ref S/RRA/MF in the Local Plan on the basis it will worsen the already extremely bad flooding issues in Oakington and will increase traffic flows on overburdened village roads. The proposal also has a very negative environmental impact on the area and we challenge the release of this land from Greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 56708

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Lolworth Parish Council

S/RRA/SAS Land to the south of the A14 Services

Lolworth Parish Meeting is strongly opposed to the loss of any green belt land. Any development should be restricted to the area south of Cambridge Services previously used as a compound for the A14 roadworks.
We are opposed to any development on the land owned by the University of Cambridge or the field east of the Services.
Noise within Lolworth is significantly increased as a result of the recent A14 development and any further increase should be minimised.
Access to Yarmouth Farm and the development must be from the Boxworth Road. Robins Lane is totally unsuitable for large vehicles.

Comment

Representation ID: 56720

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: K.B. Tebbit Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Land north east of Hurdleditch Road, Orwell (HELAA site 40383)

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 (Ref: 40383) which should be remedied as the GCLP preparation continues.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56788

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Mr T Elbourn

Agent: Sworders

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56811

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Colville

Strongly object to:

- allocations that would impact the Green Belt in any way
- 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 second point above, I refer to those sites with 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

Comment

Representation ID: 56838

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

S/RRA/SAS Land to the south of the A14 Services

Boxworth Parish strongly objects to the inclusion of this site. When the construction compound was approved it was stated it would revert to agricultural land. Development would be better served on the other side of Boxworth road from the Services.

The current traffic chaos at the Services roundabout makes additional traffic unacceptable. The strip of land behind the hotel can alleviate the traffic problems and provide alternative access.

If the scheme is approved then there can be no dilution of the constraints identified relating to visual, and ecological impact and the need to reflect the non-residential development in Boxworth.

Comment

Representation ID: 56846

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Queens' College

Agent: Bidwells

Noon Folly Farm, Land north of A14 Bar Hill. (HELAA site 40121)

Proposed Employment allocation 51.34 ha for B1c, B2 and B8 Use.

Comment

Representation ID: 56875

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Parish Council

Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Parish Council has declared a climate emergency and agrees with the red classification in the HELAA of the 16 sites in the parish identified as red [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 rated amber should be rated red due to adverse impact on the road network and loss of trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 56885

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Prince

S/RRA/MF Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road, Oakington

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56892

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Oakington & Westwick Parish Council

S/RRA/MF Land at Mansel Farm, Station Road, Oakington

Oakington & Westwick Parish Council objects to inclusion of S/RRA/MF; Green Belt should be kept in its entirety. Site is within 100 metres of the Northstowe boundary which will comprise of 10,000 homes. There is no justification for an additional homes beyond this boundary. If permitted, a precedent will be set for additional houses in the parish. The land is adjacent to a flood risk area. Traffic flows will reach saturation within next five years. Existence of busway stop does not justify construction of additional housing, given scale of Northstowe and destruction of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 56899

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: RWS Ltd

Agent: Turley

Land at Fulbourn Road, Teversham (HELAA site 40295)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56942

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

(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.

Comment

Representation ID: 56957

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: RO Property Management Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Madingley Mulch, land at Madingley Mulch off A428. (HELAA site 40158)

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

Comment

Representation ID: 57005

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Hastingwood Developments

Agent: Carter Jonas

Land at Bury End Farm in Meldreth (HELAA site 40284)

Growth of more sustainable villages must be part of development strategy, particularly those villages that contain a good range of services and facilities, accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing.

NPPF Paragraph 79 seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas; housing can enhance or maintain vitality of rural communities and support local services.

Paragraph 69 acknowledges role small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting housing requirements. Council Monitoring data confirms small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. Significant contribution towards short term and five year land supply.

Paragraph 104 expects transport issues to be considered at earliest stages of plan-making, including opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure, 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. Meldreth train station services to Cambridge and London, bus route to Royston. Greater Cambridge Partnership identified potential rural travel hub at station, which would provide additional cycle parking facilities.

Paragraph 62 expects size, type, and tenure of housing needs to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. Identified need for 36 affordable dwellings in Meldreth would not be met without allocations in Meldreth.

Allocate land at Bury End Farm in Meldreth

Comment

Representation ID: 57042

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: KWA Architects

Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c (HELAA site 40509)

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 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 57054

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: CEMEX UK Properties Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Land west of Malton Road in Orwell (HELAA Site 40324)

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for the 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/or where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 57065

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Meadows

Agent: Carter Jonas

Land r/o 113 Cottenham Road Histon (HELAA Site 40526)

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.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 57075

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Elbourn Family

Agent: Carter Jonas

Land off Fenny Lane Meldreth (HELAA Site 40036)

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for the 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/or where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

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.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 57099

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: RO Group Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Land south of Hall Lane Great Chishill (HELAA Site 47879)

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.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 57116

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Cambridge District Oddfellows

Agent: Carter Jonas

land at Two Mill Field Cottenham (HELAA Site 40419) and land north of Oakington Road Cottenham (HELAA Site 40417)

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.

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.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 57118

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Bartlow Estate

Agent: Bidwells

Land at 3 Hills Farm, Ashdon rd, Bartlow (HELAA site 40375)

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.