Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Additional allocations are required on small-to-medium sized sites. A greater buffer against the housing requirements should be introduced.

1.7.1 The Regulation 18 Plan outlines how the Council intends to deliver a minimum of 48,195 new homes between 2024 and 2045. After reviewing the delivery assumptions in Figure E1 (‘Anticipated Completions 2024 - 2025’) of the Consultation Plan, Endurance Estates considers the projected delivery rates to be unrealistic.

1.7.2 Savills’ assessment of the current 5YHLS position in Greater Cambridge confirms that the Councils cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. The proposed trajectory in Appendix E of the consultation plan does not materially change this assessment. Accordingly, Savills’ view is that, if adopted as currently proposed, the Council will be unable to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land upon adoption of the new Plan.

1.7.3 Savills estimate that the housing land supply upon adoption would likely be in the region of circa 4 years’, leaving Greater Cambridge open to speculative development to address the shortfall.

1.7.4 The projected shortfall is primarily due to unrealistic delivery assumptions at several key strategic sites. These include Northstowe, Waterbeach, and Bourn Airfield, and extend to other large allocations that lack clear evidence of delivery commencing within the five-year period.

1.7.5 To ensure that Greater Cambridge’s five-year housing land supply upon adoption is secure, the Councils should allocate further land for development, focusing on sites that do not require significant additional infrastructure before housing delivery can commence. In practice, this will mean allocating small-to-medium sized sites which can start to deliver early in the Plan period.

1.7.6 Endurance Estates has consistently promoted sites across Greater Cambridge for development, and several of these sites can deliver early in the Plan period to ensure a robust 5YHLS position.

1.7.7 Endurance Estates’ view is that the 6.5% housing supply buffer currently proposed on the housing requirement for the Plan period, upon which the allocations and trajectory are based, will result in Greater Cambridge being unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land either upon or shortly after adoption and a risk to the delivery of the Plan’s overall housing requirement. With a the limited housing supply buffer being provided, housing delivery is vulnerable to even minor slowdowns, such that a delayed planning application at a single site could subject Greater Cambridge to the tilted balance in decision-making and affect the achievement of the Plan’s housing requirement overall.

A full and comprehensive Green Belt Assessment, including consideration of Grey Belt principles, should be undertaken and provided at the earliest opportunity. This must be used to inform Regulation 19 Plan, which should include Green Belt allocations in recognition of the settlement hierarchy.

2.1.1 Endurance Estates object to Draft Policy S/GB on the basis that to date, Greater Cambridge has failed to undertake a full Green Belt review in accordance with the latest national policies and guidance. As a result, the draft Plan is not considered to be positively prepared and is not consistent with National Policy.

2.1.2 In accordance with paragraph 146 of the NPPF and following the updated Planning Practice Guidance issued in February 2025, the Councils are required to review Green Belt boundaries to support the emerging Local Plan. To this end, on 27th February 2025, it was announced that Greater Cambridge Planning had received £140,000 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Green Belt to support the emerging Local Plan.

2.1.3 As of the December 2025 Regulation 18 consultation, the most recent Green Belt Assessment remains the 2021 version, with only a high-level response to previous comments published during the last round of consultations. This stops well short of a comprehensive assessment as required by Government Policy. We are aware that Greater Cambridge have commissioned an update to the 2021 Green Belt Assessment, and it is understood that the Assessment will not be published until later in 2026, alongside Regulation 19 stage.

2.1.4 The Council’s currently stated position within the draft Regulation 18 Local Plan is that the only new site on the edge of Cambridge where exceptional circumstances justify Green Belt release is the Cambridge Biomedical Campus expansion.

2.1.5 Endurance Estates is concerned that devising a draft strategy before obtaining the latest evidence is likely to result in a misguided policy direction that does not reflect current national policy and guidance. The 2026 Green Belt Assessment risks retrofitting evidence to support the already-chosen strategy, rather than informing and shaping the strategy from the outset.

2.1.6 As a result of the out-of-date Green Belt Assessment, no consideration has been given to whether there are potential Grey Belt sites, which was introduced in the December 2024 NPPF revision. Greater Cambridge’s current position, as outlined at paragraph 2.64 of the Consultation Document is that, as (the minimum) housing needs can be met outside the Green Belt boundary, they are not required to assess sites for Grey Belt potential.

2.1.7 However, this fails to acknowledge the significant housing and employment needs arising from the National significant Cambridge Economy which justify a higher level of housing provision and jobs than currently being planned for to address the issues outline by the Government in the Case for Cambridge and other documents. Moreover, it also fails to reflect that, as acknowledged in the Council’s own evidence base, locating development on the edge of Cambridge is the next most sustainable option after development within the Cambridge urban area. The failure to undertake a Green Belt Review in this context is a fundamental flaw of the emerging Plan, particularly as we would expect the updated Assessment to consider the implications of the Grey Belt.

2.1.8 As part of the committed 2026 Green Belt Review, the Councils must take account of the latest Planning Practice Guidance. A comprehensive review, in line with the latest national policies and guidance, which includes the identification of Grey Belt sites, would give the Council the opportunity to allocate housing on the edge of Cambridge, which, by the Council’s own admission, are among the most sustainable sites in the District.

2.1.9 Endurance Estates maintains that, following the receipt of the 2026 Green Belt Review, Greater Cambridge should undertake a full and comprehensive review of the draft strategy before the Regulation 19 consultation. This must be more substantial than a mere tweak of the current proposals, which were based on outdated assessments and national policies.

2.1.10 Such an approach would ensure that higher levels of growth could be accommodated around Cambridge in a sustainable manner in accordance with Government aspirations and objectives for Cambridge, with additional housing helping to address one of the key identified barriers to growth.

2.1.11 Without pursuing such an approach, Endurance Estates is concerned that the emerging Local Plan will be fundamentally flawed and risk being unsound, holding back planned growth within the area.

Land East of Gazelle Way should be allocated for a mixed-use, residential-led, development.

General
2.2.1 As highlighted in our representations to Policies S/DS and S/GB, it is considered that the Development Strategy should be supplemented by the provision of additional allocations on the Edge of Cambridge to create a more balanced housing land supply which mitigates the risk of delayed delivery from the New Settlements. This would meet a wider range of housing needs (including affordable housing needs) across the whole area whilst also addressing the inadequate housing supply buffer previously referred to.

2.2.2 The concentration of further growth on the edge of Cambridge would result in development being located in the next most sustainable location after the urban area (as acknowledged in the Plan) where development for new housing can come forward quickly, benefiting from the existing infrastructure and proximity to jobs, services and facilities.

2.2.3 The current Green Belt constraint is acknowledged, however it is also noted that the Council have not undertaken a comprehensive Green Belt assessment to support the Plan. The LUC report to support the Plan was updated for 2025, however, this was a piecemeal response to individual representations, rather than a comprehensive strategic-level update. The report therefore makes no attempt to identify Grey Belt land which could represent some of the most highly sustainable locations outside the City.

2.2.4 The Draft Plan states that the Councils are aiming to publish an update to the Green Belt Assessment in 2026. However, in devising a strategy in advance of having the latest evidence, the 2026 Green Belt Assessment risks retrofitting evidence to support the already-chosen strategy, rather than informing and shaping the strategy from the outset.

As a result of this lack of evidence, the Plan makes only a single new allocation within the Green Belt at Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It is therefore considered that the Council should urgently undertake a full Green Belt Review in accordance with the NPPF and PPG to identify potential Grey Belt of other suitable sites on the edge of Cambridge which can sustainably contribute Greater Cambridge’s demonstrable housing and employment needs.

East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250)
2.2.5 Endurance Estates strongly objects to the omission of the proposed allocation site at Land East of Gazelle Way.

2.2.6 Endurance Estates has consistently promoted Land East of Gazelle Way for a mixed-use, landscape-led development of in the region of 1,500 dwellings, employment space and extensive public open space. The site comprises 120 acres on the edge of Cambridge which is currently in agricultural use.

2.2.7 Land East of Gazelle Way is an unparalleled location for growth and can readily connect to the existing and committed infrastructure of Cambridge without the need for substantial additional costly infrastructure.

2.2.8 Land East of Gazelle Way is well located for access to key existing employment sites, including Capital Park (Cam Life) and Fulbourn Hospital, which sit immediately south of the railway line, and Peterhouse Technology Park, which lies to the southwest and can be reached within a six-minute cycle. These employment sites represent a growing cluster, which benefit from significant investments, including from occupiers such as ARM, which has its global HQ on the Peterhouse Technology Park and is expanding significantly.

2.2.9 In recognition of its highly accessible location, the east of Cambridge area is expected to become a focus of employment and infrastructure growth over the coming decade. As part of this, projects including the Cherry Hinton Innovation District development at Coldham’s Lane (circa 1.5km west of the site) and the Cambridge East development at Cambridge Airport (circa 1.6km north-west), will both come forward and transform this part of the City.

2.2.10 Significant infrastructure is already committed to accommodate this growth, including the Fulbourn Greenway, EWR’s Cambridge East Station and the relocation of the Newmarket Road Travel Hub to Teversham, complementing the existing high quality public transport and cycle connectivity within this area.

2.2.11 To compliment this further, the proposed East of Gazelle Way scheme, would deliver new high-quality off-road cycle route connecting with the Fulbourn Greenway to the south and up to the Cambridge East to the north.
Please refer to our full representations for Endurance Estates' response to the 2025 HELAA Table.

2.2.13 In addition to the HELAA assessment, it is important to consider whether the site qualifies as Grey Belt land. According to the latest PPG, land which does not contribute strongly to Green Belt Purposes (a), (b) or (d), and where Footnote 7 of the NPPF does not provide a strong reason for refusing development, can be considered to comprise Grey Belt. Below is a brief assessment of Land East of Gazelle Way which demonstrates that the Site can be considered Grey Belt.

2.2.14 In terms of Purpose A (to check the unrestricted sprawl), while it is accepted that the proposed site would encroach into the countryside, it is our view that the site performs weakly against Purpose A. The site is largely enclosed by Cherry Hinton to the west, Springstead Village to the north, the former Ida Darwin Hospital development to the south-east and Capital Park/CamLife Campus which sits the south. The southern boundary is comprised of the Cambridge to Newmarket railway line. There are also other existing urban influences to the south in the form of the National Grid/UKPN Grid Substation, and a mobile home park with the Yarrow Road Tesco beyond. The site is therefore considered to be well contained and would be a logical extension to Cambridge. Once developed, the site would represent a logical limit to Cambridge, whilst preserving a landscaped buffer between the scheme, Teversham and Fulbourn providing separation and protecting their individual identity. This buffer would be similar in scale to that provided between Darwin Green and Girton.

2.2.15 In conclusion, the site makes a moderate contribution to Purpose A and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose B.

2.2.16 In terms of Purpose B (Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to the merging of towns, and not villages. Given the nearest town to the east of the site is Newmarket, approximately 10km away it is considered that the site makes no meaningful contribution to fulfilling this purpose.

2.2.17 Nevertheless, the proposals submitted include a substantial open landscape buffer which would preserve the setting of both Teversham and Fulbourn maintaining separation and preserving their individual identity. Once provided, the landscaped buffer would retain a visual separation between the proposals and both villages, which could be incorporated into open space, biodiversity enhancement areas or a country park – subject to further technical work and discussions with Greater Cambridge. This would effectively secure this buffer in perpetuity, rounding off development to the East of Cambridge.

2.2.18 In conclusion, the Site makes only a weak/no contribution to Green Belt Purpose B and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose B.

2.2.19 For Purpose D (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns), again, the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to towns (and not villages). Accordingly, the only historic town relevant to the site is Cambridge. The last Green Belt Assessment (LDA, August 2021) published by the Council confirmed the promotion site contributed only moderately to purpose 2 (maintaining and enhancing the quality of Cambridge’s setting), reflecting the presence of relatively modern developments in and around Cherry Hinton, which do not contribute to the historic character or setting of the City.

2.2.20 In conclusion, the Site only makes a weak to moderate contribution to this purpose and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose D.

2.2.21 Further, in terms of the Golden Rules for Green Belt Release, the site is fully capable of meeting the requirements as outlined in Paragraph 156 of the NPPF.

2.2.22 Initial technical investigations on the indicative design confirm that East of Gazelle Way can viably deliver 50% affordable housing, which would significantly help meet the pressing need for affordable housing in the City.

2.2.23 Alongside this, the proposed scheme is capable of contributing towards necessary infrastructure, including provision of a new primary school and contributions to required sustainable transport infrastructure. The site design is capable of incorporating safe active travel routes throughout, and the Site will be easily accessible and will provide enhanced linkages to the Fulbourn Greenway, relocated Teversham Travel Hub and the potential future Cambridge East Station at Coldham’s Lane. Endurance Estates would welcome discussions with Greater Cambridge relating to required infrastructure contributions.

2.2.24 The proposed scheme will also include substantial public open space, providing enhanced public access to the countryside, linking with existing Public Rights of Way for existing and future residents. This will build-on the Cambridge Nature Network and the proposals at the nearby Springstead Village and Cambridge East Sites. The site is therefore capable of meeting the NPPF’s Golden Rules for Green Belt release. The Scheme is capable of providing connectivity through to the planned green infrastructure at the Cambridge East development, helping provide additional connectivity in line with the ambitions of the Cambridge Nature Network Local Nature Recovery Strategy, providing greater benefit to nature and contributing to the delivery of wider environmental outcomes.

2.2.25 As such, it is concluded that the site is likely to constitute Grey Belt and is capable of complying with the Golden Rules of Green Belt release outlined in Paragraph 156 of the NPPF. As stated in Paragraph 158 of the NPPF, development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of granting permission.

2.2.26 Endurance Estates contends that, subject to ongoing technical investigations, Land East of Gazelle Way is capable of contributing to the identified housing needs of Greater Cambridge. The site is Available for development within the first 5 years of the Local Plan Period and remains Achievable and Suitable for the development proposed.

2.2.27 Endurance Estates requests that Greater Cambridge urgently publish the updated Green Belt Assessment and remove Land East of Gazelle Way from the Green Belt, with a corresponding allocation for residential-led mixed-use development of the site.

Housing Allocations should be made Endurance Estates' Sites at: Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554); Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438); Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228); Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227) and; Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496). These sites can contribute towards local housing needs to ensure the vitality of the existing services within the villages, and the viability of ongoing provision.

3.1.1 Endurance Estates consider that the housing allocations across the rural area are insufficient to meet local housing needs in the villages of the District and reflect wider concerns set out in our response to the wider Policies that confirm the Plan is not providing for sufficient number of new homes.

3.1.2 In particular, Endurance Estates strongly objects to Draft Policy S/RRA on the basis that it omits the following proposed site allocations:

• Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)
• Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)
• Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228)
• Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227)
• Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)

Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)

3.1.3 Endurance Estates have consistently promoted Land South of Horseheath Road, and sought to provide updated technical information at every given opportunity. The 2025 HELAA relating to the landscape impact states that the “Site is highly sensitive in landscape terms and development in this location would be highly visible, creating adverse impacts on landscape character and local views. These impacts are significant when considered cumulatively alongside other development on adjacent land”. It is not clear on what basis this conclusion was reached, as detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments have concluded that development of the site can be sufficiently mitigated through a considerate, landscape-led design and planting scheme.

3.1.4 As a Minor Rural Centre, Linton is demonstrably a sustainable settlement. Linton benefits from a Infant, Junior and Secondary Schools, a Library, several shops and cafes, public houses, a GP Surgery, dental practice, and an excellent range of sports and recreation facilities, including a skate park, swimming pool and sports pavilion. It is therefore considered that the site, and by extension the village of Linton, benefits from sufficient accessibility to essential shops and services, alongside the ability to travel sustainably further afield for a full array of services in both the surrounding villages and Cambridge.

3.1.5 Linton also now benefits from two committed schemes which are coming forward over the next few years and which remained subject to uncertainty at the Local Plan First Proposals stage. These significant transport infrastructure investments being brought forward by the GCP and include the Linton Greenway and CSET Busway. Both schemes will materially improve the sustainability of the settlement in a way which we consider has not been reflected in the assessment of the village’s potential to accommodate growth sustainably. The Linton Greenway is understood to be approaching completion, with the majority of the route between Linton and the Abingtons now in use. Linton therefore benefits from a high-quality, direct, safe and segregated pedestrian and cycle route to both Granta Park and the Babraham Research Campus - two of the largest employment sites in the District.

3.1.6 In addition, the proposed CSET scheme, which will reach examination in 2026, will provide fast and direct public transport connections into Cambridge and the Biomedical Campus from a new Travel Hub on the A11 Junction at Fourwentways. The CSET busway and Travel Hub are both easily accessible via the Greenway from Linton. It is expected that the CSET scheme will come forward as envisaged prior to or in a similar timeframe to the development of the site.

3.1.7 The supporting text to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy outlines that “We [Greater Cambridge] also have evidence that locating homes close to existing and proposed jobs at the cluster of research parks to the south of Cambridge would help reduce commuting and associated carbon emissions and congestion”. This acknowledgement is endorsed by Endurance Estates as recognition of the sustainability of villages in the Southern Cluster, which includes Linton. Despite this sensible admission, it makes the lack of any residential allocations within Linton difficult to understand, particularly with the transport enhancement schemes being brought forward by GCP with the express purpose of improving the accessibility of the Village to employment sites.

3.1.8 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.9 Endurance Estates contend that the omission of Land South of Horseheath Road fails to recognise Linton’s accessible location and the likelihood that this will shortly be enhanced through planned public transport improvements, along with the good level of existing service provision. The site and village as a whole is outside of the Green Belt and the identified landscape constraints are capable of being overcome through a landscape-led design approach.

3.1.10 Linton is therefore demonstrably a sustainable location capable for accommodating further housing growth to meet the identified local need and its allocation would be consistent with the strategy of focussing growth in the Rural Southern Cluster, close to existing employment sites. In this regard, Greater Cambridge should allocate Land South of Horseheath Road for a sustainable development of approximately 100 market and affordable homes within the village.

3.1.11 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)

3.1.12 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Balsham on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of Land at Old House Road for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, Endurance Estates are promoting Land to the Rear of Old House Road, Balsham which is considered capable of accommodating a scheme of approximately 25 new dwellings.

3.1.13 Crucially, draft Policy S/SH states that “limited development will help maintain remaining services and facilities and provide for affordable housing to meet local needs”. This acknowledgement is strongly supported by Endurance Estates, however the lack of any allocated development to ensure the long-term vitality of the village’s facilities is disappointing.

3.1.14 Balsham had a population of 1,623 as of the 2021 Census, which represents an approximate 1% decrease on the 1,641 residents recorded at the 2001 Census. This contrasts starkly with the wider South Cambridgeshire district, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. This stagnation places the village’s existing services at risk of further decline. As correctly identified by the supporting text to Policy S/SH, additional growth in villages such as Balsham is key to maintaining their vitality. Simply, without growth, the range of shops and essential services is likely to continue to deteriorate.

3.1.15 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.16 In terms Land to the Rear of Old House Road, there were no significant issues which cannot be mitigated through the scheme design which were raised in the 2021, 2023 or 2025 HELAA documents.
3.1.17 Endurance Estates contend that the Inset Map for Balsham should be urgently updated to ensure that controlled growth can come forward, in support of essential services through the allocation of sites such as Land to the Rear of Old House Road.

3.1.18 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228) and,
Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227).

3.1.19 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Bassingbourn on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of either Land off the Causeway, or Land off Elbourn Way for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, despite it being a sustainable Minor Rural Centre. Greater Cambridge recognises that the village plays a role in providing services and facilities for a rural hinterland; however, the lack of allocations to secure controlled growth moving forward puts existing services at risk of decline.

3.1.20 Bassingbourn had a population of 2,351 at the 2021 Census which represents a marked decrease on the 3,090 residents that lived in the village at the time of the 2001 Census. This decline is in stark contrast with South Cambridgeshire, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. There is therefore an urgent need to protect the vitality of the village to secure the ongoing provision of shops, services and community facilities. The Village currently hosts a good range of shops and services including a Spar Convenience Store, Public Houses and a community centre. The Village also benefits from Bassingbourn Primary and Bassingbourn Village College. Without additional growth in villages such as Bassingbourn, which play key roles in the delivery of shops and services for rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, the breadth and quality of key shops and services is likely to deteriorate, ultimately harming the sustainability of the settlement in the long term.

3.1.21 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.22 The Inset Map for Bassingbourn should be updated to reflect the role of the village as a Minor Rural Centre. Proportional and sympathetic extensions to the village, such as those proposed at Land off the Causeway and Land off Elbourn Way, are the best and most effective way to securing the continued viability of essential services and facilities and maintaining the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF.

3.1.23 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)

3.1.24 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Orwell on the basis of the omission of a site specific policy allocating Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development.

3.1.25 Orwell is categorised as a Group Village under draft Policy S/SH. The village has experienced moderate growth since the 2001 Census, increasing by approximately 6%. However, this is significantly below the growth rate of South Cambridgeshire, which saw population growth of just under 25% during the same period. As of the 2025 Regulation 18 Consultation, there are no residential allocations proposed within the village.

3.1.26 Orwell benefits from a Primary School, Public House, Post Office, Convenience Store and a Village Hall. The Village also has a good bus connection to Cambridge for a wider range of services.

3.1.27 Land at Hillside, Orwell, is promoted by Endurance Estates for a landscape-led development of approximately 26 dwellings. The 2025 HELAA did not assess the site as it was deemed to “not align with the wider Local Plan Strategy”. Endurance Estates consider that this fails to consider the contribution that the Site could make towards a controlled and proportionate growth of the Village in order to support essential services and facilities to maintain the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF.

3.1.28 In the absence of a formal assessment in the HELAA, Savills have undertaken a review against the criteria in the 2025 HELAA below. Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for this table.

3.1.29 Since the development at Hurdleditch Road was approved in 2016 (S/3190/15/OL), no further major schemes have been approved in the village. Partly as a result of the lack of site allocations there within the Adopted Local Plan.

3.1.30 Department of Education records indicate that the Petersfield C of E Primary School has 134 pupils on roll and a capacity of 210, indicating that the school is currently operating at around 64% capacity. This suggests there is capacity for growth within the village, which would help safeguard existing services for the benefit of current and future residents.

3.1.31 The Inset Map for Orwell should be updated to reflect the capacity of the village for a controlled and proportionate level of growth to support the Village’s services. This should include, as a minimum, Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development of circa 26 dwellings.

3.1.32 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

An assessment must be made of local needs for market and affordable housing in the villages and neighbourhood areas of the district. As a minimum, clarification should be introduced that the Appendix D figures are minimums and not ceilings for village growth.

3.2.1 Endurance Estates object strongly to the housing figures set out in Appendix D on the basis that the methodology is overly simplistic and not justified.

3.2.2 It is unclear what relationship, if any, the figures provided in Figure D1 bear to identified local market and affordable housing needs. At present, it appears that the apportionment is a simple proportional basis, based upon the current population.

3.2.3 A simple apportionment approach is considered too simplistic and should be updated to reflect local need.. Local needs are influenced by local characteristics, demographics, affordability, and should consider any spare capacity in existing local services, alongside projected demographic trends.

3.2.4 Moreover, the current method does not appear to reflect the settlement hierarchy and takes no account of existing service provision. As a result, smaller villages which nonetheless have a good level of service provision are apportioned a smaller number of homes than larger villages which have a relatively poorer level of public services.

3.2.5 Endurance Estates contend that the Councils should seek to update the mechanism for distributing the residual housing needs at the first opportunity to ensure that it is robust and consistent across the Plan policies. Greater Cambridge should urgently seek to ensure that market and affordable housing needs in each of the neighbourhood areas are addressed in full.

3.2.6 The relationship between the Appendix D housing requirements and Neighbourhood Plans should also be clarified. At present, it is not clear whether the needs identified are to be delivered through forthcoming Neighbourhood Plans or whether these are in addition to any needs identified through the Neighbourhood Plan-making process. It is also not clear whether these figures should take precedence to any identified figures in Neighbourhood Plans. Endurance Estates contend that this position is unacceptably subjective and open to significant interpretation from decision makers and should be rectified in the next draft of the Plan.

3.2.7 Clarification should also confirm that these housing requirements are intended as minimum figures and not as a ceiling to village growth.

Endurance Estates advocates for a balanced growth strategy in the district's villages to maintain essential services, expressing concern that the current strategy overlooks necessary growth in the Southern Cluster. The Sustainability Appraisal's failure to adequately assess reasonable alternatives, particularly in relation to land release from the Green Belt near Cambridge, jeopardises the plan's soundness. Refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for detail.

4.1.1 The Sustainability Appraisal notes at Paragraph 4.35 that the ‘Southern Cluster’ which includes Linton, would ensure that “housing is well-located in relation to existing centres of employment”. Paragraph 4.35 continues “the scale of development in the Southern cluster should be sufficient to also provide some new services and facilities”. Paragraph 4.42, also states that development in the ‘Southern Cluster’ villages, may “help to boost the vitality and viability of village services and facilities, which is particularly likely to benefit older people and the less mobile”. These acknowledgements are strongly supported by Endurance Estates.

4.1.2 Endurance Estates assert that a balanced strategy, which includes a sustained but proportional level of growth within the villages of the district, is the simplest and most effective way of ensuring the continued provision of essential services which are relied upon by existing residents and enhancing the sustainability of these villages further. Regrettably, despite acknowledgement that growth would support existing services, growth in the ‘Southern Cluster’ has largely been overlooked in the current proposed strategy. It is not considered that this choice is robustly justified by the SA.

4.1.3 Overall, it is concerning that the SA fails to adequately consider and assess the full breadth of reasonable alternatives, particularly where it relates to releasing land from the Green Belt adjacent to Cambridge. The inadequacy of the SA risks the overall soundness of the plan and must be urgently rectified.

4.1.4 The consideration of suitable alternatives does not sufficiently consider alternative edge of Cambridge sites which, by the SA’s own admission, are the most sustainable sites after those within the City itself. Endurance Estates are promoting Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton for a 120 acre, landscape-led, mixed-use development consisting of circa 1,000 high-quality homes, 500,000sqft of employment land and a significant provision of green open space. The development proposes to capitalise upon planned investments including the Fulbourn Greenway, whilst proposing extensive employment and a new Local Centre.

4.1.5 The East of Gazelle Way scheme has been assessed in the SA relatively positively, comparing favourably to the Cambridge East allocation which sits to the north-west of the site. Despite the similarity in the assessments of the two sites, Land East of Gazelle Way is not currently proposed for allocation.

4.1.6 The allocation of Cambridge East is supported, as are the mitigations and enhancements proposed as part of the Cambridge East scheme. Endurance Estates contend that Land East of Gazelle Way is the next most-logical Edge of Cambridge site for a comprehensive mixed-use development. Refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for a comparison between the Sustainability Appraisal of Cambridge East and Land East of Gazelle Way, which demonstrates a broadly similar assessment.

4.1.7 The Southern Cluster, which the SA confirms includes Linton, amongst other Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages with ‘very good’ public transport access.

Additional allocations are required on small-to-medium sized sites. A greater buffer against the housing requirements should be introduced.

1.7.1 The Regulation 18 Plan outlines how the Council intends to deliver a minimum of 48,195 new homes between 2024 and 2045. After reviewing the delivery assumptions in Figure E1 (‘Anticipated Completions 2024 - 2025’) of the Consultation Plan, Endurance Estates considers the projected delivery rates to be unrealistic.

1.7.2 Savills’ assessment of the current 5YHLS position in Greater Cambridge confirms that the Councils cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. The proposed trajectory in Appendix E of the consultation plan does not materially change this assessment. Accordingly, Savills’ view is that, if adopted as currently proposed, the Council will be unable to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land upon adoption of the new Plan.

1.7.3 Savills estimate that the housing land supply upon adoption would likely be in the region of circa 4 years’, leaving Greater Cambridge open to speculative development to address the shortfall.

1.7.4 The projected shortfall is primarily due to unrealistic delivery assumptions at several key strategic sites. These include Northstowe, Waterbeach, and Bourn Airfield, and extend to other large allocations that lack clear evidence of delivery commencing within the five-year period.

1.7.5 To ensure that Greater Cambridge’s five-year housing land supply upon adoption is secure, the Councils should allocate further land for development, focusing on sites that do not require significant additional infrastructure before housing delivery can commence. In practice, this will mean allocating small-to-medium sized sites which can start to deliver early in the Plan period.

1.7.6 Endurance Estates has consistently promoted sites across Greater Cambridge for development, and several of these sites can deliver early in the Plan period to ensure a robust 5YHLS position.

1.7.7 Endurance Estates’ view is that the 6.5% housing supply buffer currently proposed on the housing requirement for the Plan period, upon which the allocations and trajectory are based, will result in Greater Cambridge being unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land either upon or shortly after adoption and a risk to the delivery of the Plan’s overall housing requirement. With a the limited housing supply buffer being provided, housing delivery is vulnerable to even minor slowdowns, such that a delayed planning application at a single site could subject Greater Cambridge to the tilted balance in decision-making and affect the achievement of the Plan’s housing requirement overall.

A full and comprehensive Green Belt Assessment, including consideration of Grey Belt principles, should be undertaken and provided at the earliest opportunity. This must be used to inform Regulation 19 Plan, which should include Green Belt allocations in recognition of the settlement hierarchy.

2.1.1 Endurance Estates object to Draft Policy S/GB on the basis that to date, Greater Cambridge has failed to undertake a full Green Belt review in accordance with the latest national policies and guidance. As a result, the draft Plan is not considered to be positively prepared and is not consistent with National Policy.

2.1.2 In accordance with paragraph 146 of the NPPF and following the updated Planning Practice Guidance issued in February 2025, the Councils are required to review Green Belt boundaries to support the emerging Local Plan. To this end, on 27th February 2025, it was announced that Greater Cambridge Planning had received £140,000 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Green Belt to support the emerging Local Plan.

2.1.3 As of the December 2025 Regulation 18 consultation, the most recent Green Belt Assessment remains the 2021 version, with only a high-level response to previous comments published during the last round of consultations. This stops well short of a comprehensive assessment as required by Government Policy. We are aware that Greater Cambridge have commissioned an update to the 2021 Green Belt Assessment, and it is understood that the Assessment will not be published until later in 2026, alongside Regulation 19 stage.

2.1.4 The Council’s currently stated position within the draft Regulation 18 Local Plan is that the only new site on the edge of Cambridge where exceptional circumstances justify Green Belt release is the Cambridge Biomedical Campus expansion.

2.1.5 Endurance Estates is concerned that devising a draft strategy before obtaining the latest evidence is likely to result in a misguided policy direction that does not reflect current national policy and guidance. The 2026 Green Belt Assessment risks retrofitting evidence to support the already-chosen strategy, rather than informing and shaping the strategy from the outset.

2.1.6 As a result of the out-of-date Green Belt Assessment, no consideration has been given to whether there are potential Grey Belt sites, which was introduced in the December 2024 NPPF revision. Greater Cambridge’s current position, as outlined at paragraph 2.64 of the Consultation Document is that, as (the minimum) housing needs can be met outside the Green Belt boundary, they are not required to assess sites for Grey Belt potential.

2.1.7 However, this fails to acknowledge the significant housing and employment needs arising from the National significant Cambridge Economy which justify a higher level of housing provision and jobs than currently being planned for to address the issues outline by the Government in the Case for Cambridge and other documents. Moreover, it also fails to reflect that, as acknowledged in the Council’s own evidence base, locating development on the edge of Cambridge is the next most sustainable option after development within the Cambridge urban area. The failure to undertake a Green Belt Review in this context is a fundamental flaw of the emerging Plan, particularly as we would expect the updated Assessment to consider the implications of the Grey Belt.

2.1.8 As part of the committed 2026 Green Belt Review, the Councils must take account of the latest Planning Practice Guidance. A comprehensive review, in line with the latest national policies and guidance, which includes the identification of Grey Belt sites, would give the Council the opportunity to allocate housing on the edge of Cambridge, which, by the Council’s own admission, are among the most sustainable sites in the District.

2.1.9 Endurance Estates maintains that, following the receipt of the 2026 Green Belt Review, Greater Cambridge should undertake a full and comprehensive review of the draft strategy before the Regulation 19 consultation. This must be more substantial than a mere tweak of the current proposals, which were based on outdated assessments and national policies.

2.1.10 Such an approach would ensure that higher levels of growth could be accommodated around Cambridge in a sustainable manner in accordance with Government aspirations and objectives for Cambridge, with additional housing helping to address one of the key identified barriers to growth.

2.1.11 Without pursuing such an approach, Endurance Estates is concerned that the emerging Local Plan will be fundamentally flawed and risk being unsound, holding back planned growth within the area.

A full and comprehensive Green Belt Assessment, including consideration of Grey Belt principles, should be undertaken and provided at the earliest opportunity. This must be used to inform Regulation 19 Plan, which should include Green Belt allocations in recognition of the settlement hierarchy.

2.1.1 Endurance Estates object to Draft Policy S/GB on the basis that to date, Greater Cambridge has failed to undertake a full Green Belt review in accordance with the latest national policies and guidance. As a result, the draft Plan is not considered to be positively prepared and is not consistent with National Policy.

2.1.2 In accordance with paragraph 146 of the NPPF and following the updated Planning Practice Guidance issued in February 2025, the Councils are required to review Green Belt boundaries to support the emerging Local Plan. To this end, on 27th February 2025, it was announced that Greater Cambridge Planning had received £140,000 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Green Belt to support the emerging Local Plan.

2.1.3 As of the December 2025 Regulation 18 consultation, the most recent Green Belt Assessment remains the 2021 version, with only a high-level response to previous comments published during the last round of consultations. This stops well short of a comprehensive assessment as required by Government Policy. We are aware that Greater Cambridge have commissioned an update to the 2021 Green Belt Assessment, and it is understood that the Assessment will not be published until later in 2026, alongside Regulation 19 stage.

2.1.4 The Council’s currently stated position within the draft Regulation 18 Local Plan is that the only new site on the edge of Cambridge where exceptional circumstances justify Green Belt release is the Cambridge Biomedical Campus expansion.

2.1.5 Endurance Estates is concerned that devising a draft strategy before obtaining the latest evidence is likely to result in a misguided policy direction that does not reflect current national policy and guidance. The 2026 Green Belt Assessment risks retrofitting evidence to support the already-chosen strategy, rather than informing and shaping the strategy from the outset.

2.1.6 As a result of the out-of-date Green Belt Assessment, no consideration has been given to whether there are potential Grey Belt sites, which was introduced in the December 2024 NPPF revision. Greater Cambridge’s current position, as outlined at paragraph 2.64 of the Consultation Document is that, as (the minimum) housing needs can be met outside the Green Belt boundary, they are not required to assess sites for Grey Belt potential.

2.1.7 However, this fails to acknowledge the significant housing and employment needs arising from the National significant Cambridge Economy which justify a higher level of housing provision and jobs than currently being planned for to address the issues outline by the Government in the Case for Cambridge and other documents. Moreover, it also fails to reflect that, as acknowledged in the Council’s own evidence base, locating development on the edge of Cambridge is the next most sustainable option after development within the Cambridge urban area. The failure to undertake a Green Belt Review in this context is a fundamental flaw of the emerging Plan, particularly as we would expect the updated Assessment to consider the implications of the Grey Belt.

2.1.8 As part of the committed 2026 Green Belt Review, the Councils must take account of the latest Planning Practice Guidance. A comprehensive review, in line with the latest national policies and guidance, which includes the identification of Grey Belt sites, would give the Council the opportunity to allocate housing on the edge of Cambridge, which, by the Council’s own admission, are among the most sustainable sites in the District.

2.1.9 Endurance Estates maintains that, following the receipt of the 2026 Green Belt Review, Greater Cambridge should undertake a full and comprehensive review of the draft strategy before the Regulation 19 consultation. This must be more substantial than a mere tweak of the current proposals, which were based on outdated assessments and national policies.

2.1.10 Such an approach would ensure that higher levels of growth could be accommodated around Cambridge in a sustainable manner in accordance with Government aspirations and objectives for Cambridge, with additional housing helping to address one of the key identified barriers to growth.

2.1.11 Without pursuing such an approach, Endurance Estates is concerned that the emerging Local Plan will be fundamentally flawed and risk being unsound, holding back planned growth within the area.

Housing Allocations should be made at the Endurance Estates' sites at Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496). This site can contribute towards local housing needs to ensure the vitality of the existing services within the villages, and the viability of ongoing provision.

3.1.1 Endurance Estates consider that the housing allocations across the rural area are insufficient to meet local housing needs in the villages of the District and reflect wider concerns set out in our response to the wider Policies that confirm the Plan is not providing for sufficient number of new homes.

3.1.2 In particular, Endurance Estates strongly objects to Draft Policy S/RRA on the basis that it omits the following proposed site allocations:

• Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)
• Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)
• Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228)
• Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227)
• Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)

Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)

3.1.3 Endurance Estates have consistently promoted Land South of Horseheath Road, and sought to provide updated technical information at every given opportunity. The 2025 HELAA relating to the landscape impact states that the “Site is highly sensitive in landscape terms and development in this location would be highly visible, creating adverse impacts on landscape character and local views. These impacts are significant when considered cumulatively alongside other development on adjacent land”. It is not clear on what basis this conclusion was reached, as detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments have concluded that development of the site can be sufficiently mitigated through a considerate, landscape-led design and planting scheme.

3.1.4 As a Minor Rural Centre, Linton is demonstrably a sustainable settlement. Linton benefits from a Infant, Junior and Secondary Schools, a Library, several shops and cafes, public houses, a GP Surgery, dental practice, and an excellent range of sports and recreation facilities, including a skate park, swimming pool and sports pavilion. It is therefore considered that the site, and by extension the village of Linton, benefits from sufficient accessibility to essential shops and services, alongside the ability to travel sustainably further afield for a full array of services in both the surrounding villages and Cambridge.

3.1.5 Linton also now benefits from two committed schemes which are coming forward over the next few years and which remained subject to uncertainty at the Local Plan First Proposals stage. These significant transport infrastructure investments being brought forward by the GCP and include the Linton Greenway and CSET Busway. Both schemes will materially improve the sustainability of the settlement in a way which we consider has not been reflected in the assessment of the village’s potential to accommodate growth sustainably. The Linton Greenway is understood to be approaching completion, with the majority of the route between Linton and the Abingtons now in use. Linton therefore benefits from a high-quality, direct, safe and segregated pedestrian and cycle route to both Granta Park and the Babraham Research Campus - two of the largest employment sites in the District.

3.1.6 In addition, the proposed CSET scheme, which will reach examination in 2026, will provide fast and direct public transport connections into Cambridge and the Biomedical Campus from a new Travel Hub on the A11 Junction at Fourwentways. The CSET busway and Travel Hub are both easily accessible via the Greenway from Linton. It is expected that the CSET scheme will come forward as envisaged prior to or in a similar timeframe to the development of the site.

3.1.7 The supporting text to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy outlines that “We [Greater Cambridge] also have evidence that locating homes close to existing and proposed jobs at the cluster of research parks to the south of Cambridge would help reduce commuting and associated carbon emissions and congestion”. This acknowledgement is endorsed by Endurance Estates as recognition of the sustainability of villages in the Southern Cluster, which includes Linton. Despite this sensible admission, it makes the lack of any residential allocations within Linton difficult to understand, particularly with the transport enhancement schemes being brought forward by GCP with the express purpose of improving the accessibility of the Village to employment sites.

3.1.8 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.9 Endurance Estates contend that the omission of Land South of Horseheath Road fails to recognise Linton’s accessible location and the likelihood that this will shortly be enhanced through planned public transport improvements, along with the good level of existing service provision. The site and village as a whole is outside of the Green Belt and the identified landscape constraints are capable of being overcome through a landscape-led design approach.

3.1.10 Linton is therefore demonstrably a sustainable location capable for accommodating further housing growth to meet the identified local need and its allocation would be consistent with the strategy of focussing growth in the Rural Southern Cluster, close to existing employment sites. In this regard, Greater Cambridge should allocate Land South of Horseheath Road for a sustainable development of approximately 100 market and affordable homes within the village.

3.1.11 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)

3.1.12 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Balsham on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of Land at Old House Road for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, Endurance Estates are promoting Land to the Rear of Old House Road, Balsham which is considered capable of accommodating a scheme of approximately 25 new dwellings.

3.1.13 Crucially, draft Policy S/SH states that “limited development will help maintain remaining services and facilities and provide for affordable housing to meet local needs”. This acknowledgement is strongly supported by Endurance Estates, however the lack of any allocated development to ensure the long-term vitality of the village’s facilities is disappointing.

3.1.14 Balsham had a population of 1,623 as of the 2021 Census, which represents an approximate 1% decrease on the 1,641 residents recorded at the 2001 Census. This contrasts starkly with the wider South Cambridgeshire district, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. This stagnation places the village’s existing services at risk of further decline. As correctly identified by the supporting text to Policy S/SH, additional growth in villages such as Balsham is key to maintaining their vitality. Simply, without growth, the range of shops and essential services is likely to continue to deteriorate.

3.1.15 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.16 In terms Land to the Rear of Old House Road, there were no significant issues which cannot be mitigated through the scheme design which were raised in the 2021, 2023 or 2025 HELAA documents.
3.1.17 Endurance Estates contend that the Inset Map for Balsham should be urgently updated to ensure that controlled growth can come forward, in support of essential services through the allocation of sites such as Land to the Rear of Old House Road.

3.1.18 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228) and,
Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227).

3.1.19 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Bassingbourn on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of either Land off the Causeway, or Land off Elbourn Way for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, despite it being a sustainable Minor Rural Centre. Greater Cambridge recognises that the village plays a role in providing services and facilities for a rural hinterland; however, the lack of allocations to secure controlled growth moving forward puts existing services at risk of decline.

3.1.20 Bassingbourn had a population of 2,351 at the 2021 Census which represents a marked decrease on the 3,090 residents that lived in the village at the time of the 2001 Census. This decline is in stark contrast with South Cambridgeshire, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. There is therefore an urgent need to protect the vitality of the village to secure the ongoing provision of shops, services and community facilities. The Village currently hosts a good range of shops and services including a Spar Convenience Store, Public Houses and a community centre. The Village also benefits from Bassingbourn Primary and Bassingbourn Village College. Without additional growth in villages such as Bassingbourn, which play key roles in the delivery of shops and services for rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, the breadth and quality of key shops and services is likely to deteriorate, ultimately harming the sustainability of the settlement in the long term.

3.1.21 Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, alongside comments from the promotion team.

3.1.22 The Inset Map for Bassingbourn should be updated to reflect the role of the village as a Minor Rural Centre. Proportional and sympathetic extensions to the village, such as those proposed at Land off the Causeway and Land off Elbourn Way, are the best and most effective way to securing the continued viability of essential services and facilities and maintaining the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF.

3.1.23 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)

3.1.24 Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Orwell on the basis of the omission of a site specific policy allocating Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development.

3.1.25 Orwell is categorised as a Group Village under draft Policy S/SH. The village has experienced moderate growth since the 2001 Census, increasing by approximately 6%. However, this is significantly below the growth rate of South Cambridgeshire, which saw population growth of just under 25% during the same period. As of the 2025 Regulation 18 Consultation, there are no residential allocations proposed within the village.

3.1.26 Orwell benefits from a Primary School, Public House, Post Office, Convenience Store and a Village Hall. The Village also has a good bus connection to Cambridge for a wider range of services.

3.1.27 Land at Hillside, Orwell, is promoted by Endurance Estates for a landscape-led development of approximately 26 dwellings. The 2025 HELAA did not assess the site as it was deemed to “not align with the wider Local Plan Strategy”. Endurance Estates consider that this fails to consider the contribution that the Site could make towards a controlled and proportionate growth of the Village in order to support essential services and facilities to maintain the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF.

3.1.28 In the absence of a formal assessment in the HELAA, Savills have undertaken a review against the criteria in the 2025 HELAA below. Please refer to Endurance Estates' full representations for this table.

3.1.29 Since the development at Hurdleditch Road was approved in 2016 (S/3190/15/OL), no further major schemes have been approved in the village. Partly as a result of the lack of site allocations there within the Adopted Local Plan.

3.1.30 Department of Education records indicate that the Petersfield C of E Primary School has 134 pupils on roll and a capacity of 210, indicating that the school is currently operating at around 64% capacity. This suggests there is capacity for growth within the village, which would help safeguard existing services for the benefit of current and future residents.

3.1.31 The Inset Map for Orwell should be updated to reflect the capacity of the village for a controlled and proportionate level of growth to support the Village’s services. This should include, as a minimum, Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development of circa 26 dwellings.

3.1.32 The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.