Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

6.1.3 Accordingly, modifications are required to the plan to address these concerns through the allocation of land at Mingle Lane.

4.3.69 The onus of the above policy is on the protection, conservation and enhancement of features that positively contribute to the quality and character of local areas. It further sets out Important Countryside Frontages (ICFs) where these penetrate or sweep into the built-up area providing a significant connection between the built environment and surrounding rural area and provides an important rural break between two nearby but detached parts of defined development extent.
4.3.70 NL consider that the policy should be more akin to that set out in Policy GP/QP which seeks to integrate new development into existing landscape features.
Further, the ICF would in effect protect the countryside for its own sake rather than distinguishing the importance of perceived landscape asset. In essence they are an important view policy by another name. These areas will need to have some physical attribute to allow a decision maker to come to a view whether physical attributes ‘take it out of the ordinary’ rather than protecting views which may not have any landscape significance. Opinions on landscape are highly subjective and it is considered that this policy should be amended to ensure development can be designed in such a manner that takes account of the ICF through appropriate master planning rather than implementing what could be perceived as a blanket approach to protect views for their own sake.

6.1.3 Accordingly, modifications are required to the plan to address these concerns through the allocation of land at Mingle Lane.

4.3.71 In principle, NL are generally supportive of Policy H/AH which sets affordable housing requirement for the area. It requires all major development to provide at least 40% affordable housing of new homes unless a different is set out in the specific allocation policy, located within the Green Belt or is a co-living development. All major development within the Green Belt is to provide at least 50% affordable housing in compliance with the Golden Rules.
4.3.72 The Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (June 2024) affirms the importance of affordable housing delivery. It states that:
“Although increasing supply will be an essential part of improving affordability, we must also go further in building a greater share of genuinely affordable homes. That is why the Government is committed to the biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation...”
4.3.73 The Council’s assessment of affordable housing need identifies that it would be necessary to deliver over 60% of all homes in the form of affordable housing to meet demand and that delivery of affordable housing delivery has lagged behind the actual level of need. Accordingly, this points to a need to increase the housing requirement figure and identify further housing land to help reduce the level of acute need in Greater Cambridge.

4.3.74 NL reiterate the response made to the previous Regulation 18 consultation.
4.3.75 The above policy requires development proposals including 20 or more dwellings to provide at least 5% of new homes as service plots for custom and self build homes.
4.3.76 In principle, NL are generally supportive of the approach to assist in the delivery of custom and self build homes if evidence demonstrates the need for this type of development. However, it is typically the case that if plots remain unsold that they are returned to the developer to be provided as part of the market housing element. Whereas in this instance, the developer is required to either allow for a period of further marketing or that the plots are transferred to a registered provider at affordable housing land values.
4.3.77 The imposition of this aspect of the policy is therefore a never-ending period of marketing which could slow down housing delivery on the wider site until plots are acquired and stalling the delivery of much needed housing. Further, whilst there is an acute need for affordable housing, there is no guarantee that individual plots will be acquired by registered providers who would typically acquire development blocks that are already built to their specification to enable certainty over future management and costs associated with these homes. It is unlikely that Registered Providers will seek to acquire individual plots that are not built out by the developer and it is questionable whether this is actually viable for them to acquire individual plots that are likely to be pepper potted throughout the development which will unlikely fit into their business structure.
4.3.78 Notwithstanding this, if these plots were transferred to a Registered Provider it would mean that the land value would ultimately reduce from custom build to affordable and may have an unintended consequence of rendering a development unviable. NL also question how this policy interacts with the 40-50% affordable housing policy requirement as it seems if self build plots are not sold then this will artificially increase affordable housing contributions above a policy compliant affordable housing contribution and thus questions whether this policy is compliant with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.The policy should be modified so that after a period of marketing that the homes will revert to open market housing.

Modifications are required to the plan to address these concerns through the allocation of land at Mingle Lane. [see attachments]

Whilst the development strategy identifies a number of strategic sites it fails to identify growth in sustainable settlements, such as Great Shelford, in terms of sites
of a less strategic scale which are required for existing and future housing needs across many communities within the plan area. If any slippage occurs on these strategic sites, then it jeopardises the Councils’ ability to demonstrate a flexible and responsive supply of housing land over the duration of the plan period. Indeed, it is not considered that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a housing land supply at present.

Modifications are required to the plan to address these concerns through the allocation of land at Mingle Lane. [see attachments]

Whilst the development strategy identifies a number of strategic sites it fails to identify growth in sustainable settlements, such as Great Shelford, in terms of sites
of a less strategic scale which are required for existing and future housing needs across many communities within the plan area. If any slippage occurs on these strategic sites, then it jeopardises the Councils’ ability to demonstrate a flexible and responsive supply of housing land over the duration of the plan period. Indeed, it is not considered that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a housing land supply at present.