Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Policy S/SH – Settlement Hierarchy

The village of Melbourn has been identified within the emerging Settlement Hierarchy as a Minor Rural Centre with the adjoining village of Meldreth identified as Group Village. Melbourn was allocated as a Minor Rural Centre in the previously adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

There is however a strong sustainability argument that these villages, which have both grown in population over recent years to around 5000 residents, should be considered jointly as a Rural Centre designation in the new Settlement Hierarchy given the expanding population and level of services and transport links the villages enjoy.
Melbourn & Meldreth (M&M) represent an unconstrained sustainable location for growth of both housing and employment development within and the largest village in the Southwest area of the district. The village has grown over recent years following the delivery of a number of residential schemes in both villages with further growth identified though two new housing allocations in the emerging Local Plan. Melbourn in particular already enjoys a good level of employment development including the Melbourn Science Park.
Villages services include:

• Shops including Coop; Butchers; Farm Shop; Pubs; Post Office
• Melbourn Village College (Secondary Education);
• Melbourn Primary School;
• Melbourn Science Park;
• Saxon Way Business Park;
• Doctors Surgery & Health Centre;
• Library;
• Sports Centre

The level of services is generally greater than many of the other the other Minor Rural Centres identified in the emerging Settlement Hierarchy and equal too or greater than those of other Rural Centre's of a similar population.
Public Transport

M&M benefit from some of the best levels of access to public transport in the whole district which appears to have been overlooked through the emerging plan process

M&M are served by the Guided Bus and National Rail services which include:

• Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Route A between Royston, Cambridge and St Ives. This service provides connections to Cambridge City Centre, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambridge Science Park. Services run every hour Monday – Saturday daytimes, via Royston Road.
• Thameslink railway services between Cambridge and London King’s Cross. This service was upgraded in 2018 and now operates every half hour during weekdays, every hour at weekends. The service operates from Meldreth railway station, where passenger numbers are increasing.
Cambridge Greenways

Access to district wide cycle links is also available in Melbourn. The Greater Cambridge Partnership is currently working to deliver a network of ‘Greenways’ linking Cambridge with surrounding towns and villages. These are intended to form high quality cycle and walking routes, replicating the success of existing routes such as the cycleway alongside the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Funding has been allocated to deliver a Greenway between Cambridge and Melbourn; the northern part of this between Harston and Foxton has been completed.
Settlement Hierarchy

The proposed settlement hierarchy identifies five allocated Rural Centres in the district and includes two other locations which combine closely related villages; Histon & Impington and Great Shelford & Stapleford.
In particular M&M are very similar in scale to Great Shelford & Stapleford and share a similar level of services. Whilst M&M are further from the urban area of Cambridge, they do benefit from excellent transport links including a rail link into central Cambridge from Meldreth with a 20-minute travelling time and a direct link into London Kings Cross in just over an hour. There is also direct access to the guided bus into central Cambridge which stops on the high street every hour

M&M have a level of services and transport links which generally matches and, in some cases, exceed those found in the other identified Rural Centres. None of the other Minor Rural centres have this level of public transport accessibility or are they located on a primary transport route (A10).

A further advantage of identifying M&M as a Rural Centre is that it is not constrained by the green belt. This will allow both housing and employment growth to come forward without the loss of green belt land whereas three of the other Rural Centres are all constrained by the green belt requiring special circumstances to be identified for any edge of settlement developments. Melbourn in particular is capable of delivering development of a scale which exceeds the proposed 30 dwellings windfall limit for proposed for Minor Rural Centre and has land fronting on to the A10 and which is well suited to employment development without green belt restrictions.

Policy S/DS: Development Strategy sets out where the homes and jobs identified in the Plan should be provided in order to meet the vision and aims of the Local Plan. It is considered that this development strategy is flawed as it concentrates a significant amount of development in new settlements and large edge of Cambridge sites. Less than 4% of the total additional homes and employment sites planned for are to be located within existing villages.

This is not an appropriate response to allow these villages to grow and thrive during the plan period. It is acknowledged that a sustainable strategy is required in relation to the location of new development however, to define all villages in South Cambridgeshire as unsustainable and not allowing any new housing and employment development to meet their needs will ensure that these villages will never grow, prosper, or adapt to changing needs and they will stagnate. In particular the decision to exclude Melbourn from any major employment development is major missed opportunity given the sustainable credentials of the village.

The proposed development strategy in respect of employment is to direct development to where is has least climate impact; where active and public transport is the natural choice; where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development and where jobs’ services and facilities can be located close to where people live.
We understand to focus the majority of growth around Cambridge and the other major settlements however there is a particular opportunity we consider has been overlooked at Melbourn. We have made representations to this consultation that Melbourn (along with Meldreth) should be moved up the hierarchy as it is already performing as a Rural Centre.

The land identified in SHLAA: Site Reference 40262 to the east and west of the A10 at Melbourn is perfectly positioned to deliver employment development in a sustainable location without the need to impact on the green belt. The proposed site meets all the criteria outlined in the development strategy criteria above and can deliver a roadside services scheme with B1; B2;B8 employment uses. It would provide job opportunities, commutable by sustainable modes, not only for Melbourn and Meldreth but other surrounding villages as well, supporting the reduction in car dependency and commuting into Cambridge. Other aspirations for a care village identified in our earlier representations have now been replaced with employment development as shown on the amended masterplan.

Melbourn needs to deliver further jobs to provide a balance with existing and proposed future housing growth in the village which includes the two Melbourn sites in the Housing land supply assessment at The Moor (20 dwellings) and Cambridge Road (120 dwellings). The village is more than capable of sustaining larger scale windfall development which is why it should be moved up the settlement hierarchy accordingly.

A Local Plan objective is "Making Places better" but it is unclear how this objective will be achieved in rural communities with no housing and employment growth allowed. It is not adequate to ignore the needs of these communities by cutting them off and stunting their growth. South Cambridgeshire District is a rural authority, and a large proportion of the current population resides in rural areas. This population is anticipated to grow significantly in the plan period by 27.4% .

This population growth and investment cannot all be directed to new settlements at the cost of the existing villages. Investment should also be directed towards improving public transport for rural communities to improve their sustainability and access to a range of services and through delivering appropriate levels of employment growth at the most sustainable rural villages such as Melbourn, which sits on a primary route network and has the best public transport links of any village of its size in the district. This would reduce car dependency, support the adoption of sustainable modes of transport and reduce commuting in to Cambridge, by providing high-quality job opportunities closer to where people live.

We do not consider that settlement boundaries should be imposed as they have historically become out of date during the plan period and provided an unnecessary restraint on development and usually exclude many sites which would be suitable for development during the plan period. They are only a real benefit to the small rural villages where development can be contained to the appropriate infill plots.

There does not appear to be a map included with the consultation setting out the proposed boundaries so we are unable to comment on the specific boundaries however in order to maximise flexibility in the approach to future land supply it would be sensible not to apply settlement boundaries on the most sustainable locations – Minor Rural Centre and above - in order to ensure that future land supply can be considered in the context of the overall suitability of the site when assessed against the wider policies of the plan and not based on whether it is inside a settlement boundary or not.

Policy S/JH - New Jobs and Homes

Policy S/JH: New Homes and Jobs seeks to deliver 2,111 homes per annum (44,400 homes in total) set against a job forecast of 58,500 new jobs during the plan period. It is encouraging that this target has increased from previous iterations of the Local Plan and the standard method calculation, however we do not think it goes far enough in meeting the employment or housing needs of the district over the Plan Period.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER 2018) has evidenced that job growth has been faster than expected and at a rate that is significantly higher than the Local Plan uses (1.1%) in its assumptions. All indications are that this growth is more than likely to continue. The report concludes that: "it is indisputable that high rates of employment growth have put great strain on the housing market in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, particularly around Cambridge. The result is exceedingly high living costs, longer commutes, social stratification, and extra cost for business. Ambitions for house building should be increased to deal with a housing deficit that has grown up following under-projections of growth".

The HERR also provides an alternative higher job forecast which has not been taken forward by the GCLP. The higher forecast could deliver 78,700 jobs over the plan period, this equates to an additional 20,200 jobs when compared to the medium jobs forecast pursed by the GCLP First Proposals. This forecast places greater weight on the fast growth experienced in the recent past, with the year-on-year growth in jobs higher than that seen between 2001-17 and 1991-17, but lower than the ‘fast growth’ period of 2010-17. To support 78,700 new jobs the GCLP would need to propose a housing target of 56,500 dwellings, 12,100 more dwellings than currently proposed in the GCLP First Proposals.

Given the level of investment and momentum behind growth initiatives and funding in Cambridge we consider more likely that the faster growth in the recent past will continue, rather than defaulting back to long term employment patterns continuing. The emerging Local Plan therefore needs to plan for higher levels of employment growth and ensure there is a sufficient supply of employment land to meet demand.

Furthermore, whilst it is recognised that the Greater Cambridge regional economy is of national importance, and it is also fundamental that the emerging Local Plan delivers opportunities for all types of employment growth and not just those that relate to the more common tech and science park sectors associated with central Cambridge and its urban fringe. This is even more important given the increase in the price of commercial floorspace over recent years and the difficulty ‘lower value’ industries have in being able to locate in and around Cambridge. Affordability of commercial floorspace is becoming a significant issue and one that the Local Plan needs to comprehensively address.

There has been an overarching reluctance in South Cambridgeshire to support B2 and B8 employment uses along the primary transport corridors. Whilst the A14 corridor does have some logistics development it is very minor compared to the amount of development found along the A1 corridor at Peterborough. In considering new employment growth consideration should be given through the plan making process to identify potential employment sites which are located on key transport corridors (A14; M11 or A10) to ensure this employment sector is catered for and suitable sites are identifies throughout the district. This trend is supported by the report produced by Savills which accompanies these representations setting out the need to fully identify additional employment land to meet future demand.

Conclusion
The independent report produced by Savills has identified a rising demand for employment land and the need to allow for greater job creation through the Local Plan process than currently identified. Failure to identify sufficient land for employment development at Melbourn is a missed opportunity to deliver employment development in a highly sustainable location outside the green belt where there will be little impact on the environment or other site-specific designations. It is important that sites which are in locations capable of delivering B2/B8 employment uses or capable of accommodating existing businesses who wish to relocate are fully considered and identified through the Local plan process in order that the future demand can be met. The negative impacts of not allocating enough employment land includes constraining the number of small company’s start-ups and losing businesses who cannot find affordable accommodation in the District.

Policy S/RRA – Remaining Rural Area

Endurance Estates consider that their land interest on land at A10 Royston Road, Melbourn, Cambridgeshire (Site Reference 40262) should be allocated as part of the rural allocations under Policy S/RRA of the emerging Local Plan for mixed use employment development.

Other representation to this emerging plan have outlined why we consider that Melbourn and Meldreth should be considered as a Rural Centre allocation in the Settlement Hierarchy and therefore considered for unrestricted housing and employment growth through the Local Plan period.

The village is the largest in the South West of the district and enjoys a prime location on the A10 primary route corridor and is served by a full range of public transport options including the guided bus and National Rail Services, as well as being the subject of future projects such as the Melbourn Greenway.

Previous representations have identified the land to the east and west of the A10 as being suitable for a range of employment uses which included roadside services; employment; battery storage and a care village. Subsequent considerations and discussions with local councillors have now amended this potential development mix to include development for employment on both sites; with Roadside services on the western parcel. The amended masterplan which is provided with the representations outlines the new proposed development mix which focuses on employment uses. The previously proposed care village has been removed from our proposals.

Proposed Scheme (See submitted revised masterplan)
• Employment Uses (Class B2/B8/E(g))
• Roadside Uses (Classes E(a); E(b); Sui Generis)

Discussions with both Local and District Councillors in Melbourn identified that if the sites were to come forward for development they would prefer to see employment development on the eastern parcel (rather than a care village) to provide a balance with the proposed and existing housing growth in the villages (including Meldreth) and provide possible business linkages with Melbourn College.

The emerging Local Plan identifies further residential growth in Melbourn at The Moor (S/RRA/ML) for 20 dwellings and 120 units at Cambridge Road, Melbourn (S/RRA/CR) which includes 2.5ha of employment space to allow expansion of the existing Science Park. Both these allocations are welcomed however they do not go far enough in delivering sufficient employment growth to Melbourn.

In assessing the proposed site allocation through the SHLAA to inform the proposed emerging allocation the site was considered to be achievable and available but was not considered to be suitable. Given the overarching development strategy in the plan we can only consider it was considered unsuitable as the overarching strategy has been to focus new development in the larger settlements rather than in the rural villages.

What however stands Melbourn and Meldreth apart from other rural villages is its accessibility to the A10 corridor to serve business uses but also to deliver employment land on a site which is well related to the villages but is relatively unconstrained and not within the Green Belt. This site therefore offers the perfect destination for new businesses looking for a well-located business cluster which is close to Cambridge or those who are currently occupying inappropriate sites in the district (or surrounding districts) who are looking for a place to relocate therefore potentially freeing up sites for other forms of development.

The only element of the site assessment to score a red score was the Landscape and Townscape assessment. It is unclear from the summary how this assessment was undertaken however the conclusion that the site allows a significant adverse impact on the landscape character is questionable given the adjoining railway line; solar park and large scale farm shop operation adjoining the western parcel and the commercial vehicle business adjoining the eastern parcel. We have therefore provided a Landscape Assessment of the site by Pegasus Landscape Team as a full response to this assessment.

Published Assessments

Contrary to the SHLAA assessment the site does not fall within the 4C: Hatley Wooded Claylands. According to the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment (February 2021) the majority of the site falls within the Landscape Character Type (LCT) 3 Lowland Farmlands and more specifically its Landscape Character Area (LCA) 3C: Rhee Tributaries Lowland Farmlands. The southern parcel falls within the LCT 8 Lowland Chalklands and LCA 8B Morden to Duxford Lowland Chalklands.

The host LCT 3 is described as: “The Lowland Farmlands Landscape Character Type (LCT) is a gently undulating, intensively farmed arable landscape encompassing densely settled, wide, flat river valleys and their tributaries.”

Its key characteristics are identified in the published assessment as:

“Low-lying, gently rolling topography crossed by river corridors and drained by small streams
Open character and often extensive views
Productive, intensively farmed, predominantly arable landscape that has experienced significant modification during the 20th century, resulting in amalgamation of fields
Generally sparse woodland cover and fragmented network of hedge boundaries
Woodland and traditional orchards often define the edge of settlements
Scattered Medieval moated sites and stone churches are characteristic features
A well settled landscape with a relatively dense rural settlement pattern comprising large and small villages and outlying farmsteads”

The host LCA 3C: Rhee Tributaries Lowland Farmlands has the following key characteristics, based on the published assessment:

“Wide valley of the River Rhee and its tributaries
Predominantly medium to large rectilinear fields organised in a haphazard pattern with pockets of regularity
Small woodland blocks combine with shelterbelts and clumps of trees to create well treed horizons
Small scale fields often found at the edge of villages
Ecological richness including lowland meadows, lowland fen and floodplain grazing marsh
Dense settlement pattern comprising large, nucleated villages in the south of the LCA
Distinctive linear features including Ermine Street Roman road, Wimpole Hall Avenue and the railway”

The LCA specific landscape sensitives have been identified as:

“Small scale fields often found at the edge of villages
Distinctive linear features including Ermine Street Roman road, Wimpole Hall Avenue and the railway”

The LCA specific Landscape Guidelines have been identified as:
“Conserve and enhance the regular small-scale pastoral fields, shelter belts and hedgerows at village edges
Maintain distinctive linear features”

With regard the site’s southern parcel, due to its very small scale it is not reviewed in detail. It is considered that being located on the edge of the LCA 3C: Rhee Tributaries Lowland Farmlands it would exhibit similar characteristics as the majority of the site.

Character of the Site and its Suitability for Development

The site is best described as three level and geometric arable fields associated with and characterised by the proximity to the A10 and Cambridge – Hitchin railway line. The elevated railway embankment, along the western boundary, is a strong linear feature in the landscape separating and screening the site from the wider countryside further west. The A10 follows the railway line in close proximity and reflects its alignment, bisecting the two main parcels. This creates an untypical localised variation in landscape character terms, and the site reads somewhat subservient to these two transport corridors. The settlement of Melbourn is located in very close proximity but the intervening vegetation protects its setting.

The level topography associated with the site does not provide any opportunities for distant or elevated views and the vegetated corridor of the A10 and elevated railway embankment curtails views. The intervening vegetation along field boundaries, tree belts along the A10, and built form associated with the Bury Lane garden centre result in inward looking and short range views, which distinctively lack any special visual relationship with the wider countryside or indeed the settlement of Melbourn. Vegetation along Bury Lane and Royston Road adds to the perception of isolation and segregation from the surrounding landscape. The gently rising topography of Grinnel Hill separates the site from the rising landscape further south east. The elevated Hyde Hill and Goffers Knoll do not act as features in the very close range views associated with the site.

Whilst there are a number of PRoWs in the vicinity of the site, the majority of them are located to the south east of Royston Road and follow existing agricultural tracks, all being bridleways open to all traffic. Three of them lead south east towards the elevated Hyde Hill and Goffers Knoll but stop short from reaching the elevated ground. The bridleway that coincides with Bury Lane is strongly vegetated with views curtailed.

The slightly elevated Royston Road is the only location which allows relatively open and slightly elevated views across the site. Views east and south towards the elevated Hyde Hill and Goffers Knoll are not gained, due to the intervening landform of Grinnel Hill. Views east and north east are characterised by the A10, railway line and built form of the Bury Lane garden centre. The medium range and distant landscape is seen as a backdrop of tree groups and isolated tree canopies, i.e wooded and treed level horizon.

In other words, the site is seen in isolation, without any evident relationship to the surrounding landscape. It does not exhibit the more sensitive characteristics of the host LCT 3 such as the “...often extensive views...” or visibility with local landmarks, vernacular architecture or heritage assets identified as being one of the key characteristics of this LCT.

The site comprises simple rectilinear fields under arable cultivation and does not include traditional orchards or small scale field system recognised as vulnerable to development pressures. The masterplan, included in Pegasus’ Site Promotion Document, retains the existing field boundaries and there are opportunities for the existing landscape framework to be supplemented with additional planting. The function and detail of these landscape buffers can be informed by a detailed landscape and visual assessment. This could be sensitively designed to respond to the key characteristics of the host LCT 3 “Woodland and traditional orchards often define the edge of settlements”.

Conclusions

Contrary to the SHLAA assessment the site does not fall within the 4C: Hatley Wooded Claylands. It forms part of the LCT 3 and more specifically its 3C: Rhee Tributaries Lowland Farmlands. Whilst the site and local area include certain characteristics of the host LCT and LCA these are not considered to be a major constraint. The level topography of the River Rhee and its tributaries and “Predominantly medium to large rectilinear fields organised in a haphazard pattern with pockets of regularity” are more likely to be able to absorb development better than small scale fields and traditionally managed orchard sites around the settlements.

LCA specific landscape sensitives include “Small scale fields often found at the edge of villages” but these are not present within or immediately around the site. Similarly, the “Distinctive linear features including Ermine Street Roman road, Wimpole Hall Avenue...” would not be affected by the development of the site in a way that would compromise their function as landmarks or contribution to the local landscape. The strongly linear Cambridge – Hitchin railway line and A10 are modern features.

Whilst the description of the host LCT states that: “The Lowland Farmlands is an intensively farmed LCT. It maintains a tranquil and rural character due to the dispersed hierarchy of settlements from large villages to outlying farmsteads” the rural character of the site is compromised by the proximity and strongly linear form of the railway line and the A10, and adjacent commercial use associated with the Bury Lane garden centre, with the landscape perceived as relatively busy. Its relative sense of tranquillity is reduced, when compared to other parts of the LCT where movement and noise is less frequent or evident.

The SHLAA assessment specifically refers to “...remarkable views across it from both the A10 and Royston Road and allows for a full experience of the NCA87 character type of spacious and strong rural character with rolling hills beyond.” Contrary to this statement, views are generally short range and largely inward looking, and unremarkable being affected by major transport corridors and foreshortened by the railway embankment and vegetation. The railway line, the A10 and Royston Road curtail views.

The Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment was published in early 2021, but it fails to recognise the presence of two solar farms and substation, which lie in a very close proximity to the site and are an established feature of the local area. The south eastern settlement edge of Melbourn is also affected by the presence of various light industrial facilities, which cover a relatively large area, when compared to the overall extent of the village. These factors, collectively, act to refine the characteristics of the landscape around the south western edge of Melbourn whereby the key characteristics of the host LCT and LCA are less evident or augmented by the aforementioned features.

It transpires that the site has the potential to accommodate the development, and with a strong and sympathetically designed landscape proposals, any potential landscape character and visual effects could be successfully mitigated. Therefore, the level of harm would be considerably lower than that alleged in the Council’s SHLAA assessment

All other site-specific assessments were considered to be either green or amber indicating they could be resolved through the planning application process although it is worth considering the following update on the highways position which has progressed since out previous representations.

Highways

The current junction between A10 and Royston Road has been the location of several accidents in recent years which resulted in injuries. This junction remains a poor arrangement for the highway user.

WSP have an in-principle agreement with County Highways to deliver a new four arm roundabout to serve Melbourn and the proposed land parcel to the west of the A10. This arrangement will make the junction safer for vehicles accessing and exiting Royston Road and slow down all traffic on the A10.

This arrangement now also includes a signalised pedestrian crossing to allow safe pedestrian access to the western site and existing PRoW across the A10 when walking/cycling from the village. Cycle links and footpath links to both villages would be upgraded. The crossing would also introduce two new bus stops to allow ease of access from both proposed business sites.

Conclusion

The site is in a strategic location offering good access to the local and regional highway network and lies on major economic corridors including the A10 and the Thameslink rail route.

It is well connected to existing employment centres by road and public transport, as well as local employment areas in Melbourn including the Saxon Way business park and the high tech Melbourn Science Park. The site is close to the existing local services and community within Melbourn itself.

The site can deliver a scheme for employment use with a Roadside services scheme to serve the A10 and associated battery storage to serve on site development.

The design and master planning of the site take’s the opportunity to locate these uses in the most suitable parts of the site, whilst taking into account the constraints and opportunities of the site. The development will secure improvements to the existing junction between the A10 and Royston Road, through the provision of a roundabout, in place of the existing priority junction.

Endurance Estates and the consultant team consider the site represents a compelling opportunity to achieve sustainable development. Endurance Estates looks forward to continuing engagement with South Cambridgeshire District Council to bring this site forward for development

We support the seven main aims for the Local Plan that focus on: climate change, biodiversity and green space, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes and infrastructure.

We agree that development should be sustainable and mitigate climate impacts. However, we have strong concerns that the level of employment growth forecasted and the supply of homes proposed is not high enough and not best located. If not planned for, this will cause high levels of in-commuting to the area contributing to congestion, poor air quality, adverse climate impacts, poor housing choice and affordability and rising business costs. Instead, there needs to be a more resilient housing delivery strategy with further allocations and a greater mix of sites – small, medium and (lower risk) large, added to the strategy

The Councils’ forecasted growth scenarios (medium and high) do not go far enough to reflect the potential growth scenarios for the area. We argue that a substantial increase in the Councils’ employment growth and housing delivery assumptions is required to ensure planned growth aligns with past performance and that aspired to in order to double GVA over the next 25 years.

The Councils’ approach to forecasting employment growth must also take into account suppressed demand and more accurately account for historic or current property market dynamics, as highlighted in the accompanying report by Savills.

The development strategy will not provide a wide range of homes and jobs and is heavily reliant on commuting to Cambridge and high-density living environments on sites with high infrastructure burdens.

The Local Plan should allocate the widest possible range of sites in order to provide choice, affordability and diversity in the market; not to mention resilience in supply across the plan period. Small-medium sized sites play an important role in providing a wide variety of house types, tenures, sizes and mix and also deliver quickly compared to larger sites.

Too much reliance is placed on this site in the development strategy to deliver a significant quantum of housing especially when considering its complex nature, high infrastructure costs and the uncertainty around the timing and assessment of the WWTW relocation. We are of the view that the quantum of development is far too high for the size of the area allocated for housing and the various site constraints.

We raise several questions in our attached comments regarding the biodiversity net gain, townscape impacts, implementation of the trip budget and the robustness of the viability appraisal.