Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

The proposed policy approach will require continual updating of the self and custom build register(s) to reflect the permissions that have been granted with a self- or custom-build element. Close monitoring on sales and completions will also be necessary in case plots earmarked for self- or custom-build revert to market dwellings at the end of the prescribed 12-month marketing period.
It is also unclear if the current registers for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are to be combined, with delivery of plots across the wider area. This would not be logical since many prospective self-builders will have preferred locations and few will have a search area as wide as Greater Cambridge. A more focused policy, perhaps split across the two administrative areas, would encourage the development of self-build plots in the right locations to meet local demand. For example, if all the need for plots was in and around Cambridge, it would not make sense to burden developers in other parts of the area.

The First Proposals plan is heavily reliant on the delivery of a handful of strategic developments, particularly large and complex sites which, on average, would take 5-8 years for the first home to be delivered. To ensure that housing delivery does not stall, and the affordability crisis worsened as a result, a pipeline of smaller developments which can deliver homes quickly will be needed in the short-to-medium term.

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the 'organic' growth of smaller settlements. To ensure that local housing needs can be fulfilled and prevent any further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.
Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the 'open countryside'. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Although sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm (e.g. Whittlesford). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality development with extensive landscaping that would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
Furthermore, for Group Villages such as Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge, the current strategy to restrict developments to an indicative maximum of 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings where this would make the best use of a single brownfield site) within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet the existing need for affordable homes or the projected need that could follow nearby business park expansions. As a result, the affordability crisis will deepen in the rural area. For example, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Whittlesford, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. With limited scope for development within the tightly drawn settlement boundary, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of the village. To discourage the development of less suitable sites and assist in the delivery of much­ needed affordable housing, the most logical approach is to allocate further sites on the edge of sustainable settlements such as Whittlesford Bridge.
Overall, a carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.