Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

2.0 GREATER CAMBRIDGE HOUSING STRATEGY - RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) 2018 highlighted concern that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are running a very significant risk of not achieving their economic potential due to insufficient levels of planned housing. It calls for the recalibration of housing need assessments based on more accurate employment growth forecasts, which in turn should set new, higher housing targets – at the very least adding on accumulated backlog. This would require delivery of around 2900 homes per annum in Greater Cambridge until 2040. These indicative housing projections are substantially higher than the Government’s standard method and present exceptional circumstances to justify an alternative approach to the standard method. 2.2 To address this higher housing forecast up until 2040 the development strategy will need to balance the distribution of housing supply and ensure (as per para.59 of the NPPF) that sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed. The current Local Plan trajectory places significant reliance on growth sites continuing the housing supply beyond 2031, but such sites are skewed to the north of the district and do not consider communities to the south. The collective proximity of these growth sites to one another also present future challenges in terms of market absorption rates. 2.3 Basing the CPIER’s estimates against the existing proportional representation of growth across the adopted development strategy shows the potential need for 6,294 additional homes in rural areas up until 2040 (see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020 – Appendix 1) beyond the current pipeline of homes that have permission or are allocated in the adopted Local Plans. This relies on the remaining housing need being delivered through densification of Cambridge, further urban fringe sites and new settlements. Whilst some of this need may be coordinated or shared with neighbouring authorities through the duty to cooperate it is highly likely that a great deal of this need will need to be delivered within Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire taking into account the affordability crisis, sustainability objectives, as well as economic and market forces. Future pressure on Cambridge to densify and further expand its urban fringes will therefore need to be weighed against the harm to its compact and historic character. 2.4 The alternative scenario for the development strategy is to steer a greater proportion of homes towards sustainable rural settlements. As such, there is potential scope to consider the need for more than 6,294 additional homes to be delivered in rural areas up until 2040. In purely quantitative terms this would mean delivering around 60 homes in each of the 106 rural settlements as a minimum. 2.5 This raises some key questions for the Local Plan that are already contained in the Issues and Options Consultation, as follows:

No uploaded files for public display

2.6 Summary Answer: The Local Plan should allocate the widest possible range of sites in order to provide choice, affordability and diversity in the market. The Letwin Review, published in October 2018, placed a clear emphasis on the need to tackle the homogeneity of homes on offer and diversify the types and tenures on offer on large sites. Smallmedium 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. In accordance with paragraphs 67 and 68 of the NPPF, strategic policy-making authorities should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites over the local plan, including at least 10% of their requirement on sites no larger than one hectare. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Nothing chosen

2.7 Summary Answer: Yes, we think housing need should reflect the upper housing range recommended in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER, 2018) in order to support the forecast and needed economic growth over the next 20 years. This equates to around 2900 homes each year for Greater Cambridge and an uplift of 58% housing supply compared to the current objectively assessed need. Basing the CPIER’s estimates against the existing proportional representation of growth across the adopted development strategy shows the potential need for 6,294 additional homes in rural areas up until 2040 (see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020 – Appendix 1). 2.1 The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) 2018 highlighted concern that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are running a very significant risk of not achieving their economic potential due to insufficient levels of planned housing. It calls for the recalibration of housing need assessments based on more accurate employment growth forecasts, which in turn should set new, higher housing targets – at the very least adding on accumulated backlog. This would require delivery of around 2900 homes per annum in Greater Cambridge until 2040. These indicative housing projections are substantially higher than the Government’s standard method and present exceptional circumstances to justify an alternative approach to the standard method. 2.2 To address this higher housing forecast up until 2040 the development strategy will need to balance the distribution of housing supply and ensure (as per para.59 of the NPPF) that sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed. The current Local Plan trajectory places significant reliance on growth sites continuing the housing supply beyond 2031, but such sites are skewed to the north of the district and do not consider communities to the south. The collective proximity of these growth sites to one another also present future challenges in terms of market absorption rates. 2.3 Basing the CPIER’s estimates against the existing proportional representation of growth across the adopted development strategy shows the potential need for 6,294 additional homes in rural areas up until 2040 (see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020 – Appendix 1) beyond the current pipeline of homes that have permission or are allocated in the adopted Local Plans. This relies on the remaining housing need being delivered through densification of Cambridge, further urban fringe sites and new settlements. Whilst some of this need may be coordinated or shared with neighbouring authorities through the duty to cooperate it is highly likely that a great deal of this need will need to be delivered within Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire taking into account the affordability crisis, sustainability objectives, as well as economic and market forces. Future pressure on Cambridge to densify and further expand its urban fringes will therefore need to be weighed against the harm to its compact and historic character. 2.4 The alternative scenario for the development strategy is to steer a greater proportion of homes towards sustainable rural settlements. As such, there is potential scope to consider the need for more than 6,294 additional homes to be delivered in rural areas up until 2040. In purely quantitative terms this would mean delivering around 60 homes in each of the 106 rural settlements as a minimum. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

2.8 Summary Answer: Sustainable transport is not only about the provision of sustainable travel infrastructure but also the creation of sustainable movements. Sustainable growth within villages can contribute to the footfall needed to support village services and facilities, which in turn reduces the need to travel by private car. As promoted in paragraph 78 of the NPPF, sustainable development in rural areas is about locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Additionally, new development can contribute to sustainable transport improvements in rural areas through S106 contributions. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Highly flexible

2.9 Summary Answer: We think it should be highly flexible not only to meet additional housing need but also to deliver sustainable enhancements to existing villages and rural areas more generally. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Nothing chosen

2.10 Summary Answer: We think the development strategy should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries by recalibrating the settlement hierarchy based not only on existing levels of services and facilities in each settlement but also the potential sustainability enhancing effect of accommodating growth. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

2.11 Summary Answer: The emerging plan will need to strike the right balance between high growth needs and the character of what makes the area unique. Given the high level of housing need in the area it is inevitable that several villages will need to accommodate further growth. This means, amongst other things, allocating sufficient housing land for small-medium housing sites, which can deliver quickly and help distribute growth more sustainably throughout the district (para. 68 of the NPPF) and identifying opportunities for villages to grow and thrive in order to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (para. 78 of the NPPF). 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

2.12 Summary Answer: Transport corridors present potential sustainable locations for new development, as well as better connecting rural areas to important facilities, services and employment areas. However, the development strategy needs to consider sustainability in a holistic way by considering other factors that contribute to the sustainability of existing and new settlements, as detailed in the following paragraphs. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Yes

2.19 Summary Answer: Yes. It is important to note that the Green Belt is a planning designation rather than an environmental designation. The current and future constraints to housing growth within Cambridge, its fringes together with a potential overreliance on new settlements presents a strong case to review Green Belt release when considering the high growth needs of the area and the overarching need to deliver growth in a sustainable way. The high level of housing delivery needed to sustain a rolling 5 year housing supply throughout the plan period is best met through a mix of housing sites and land availability. Sustainable growth on the edge of the City and within settlements surrounding Cambridge can make an important contribution to this objective, creating opportunity to rebalance housing supply and foster zero carbon developments and lifestyles through reduced travel distances and sustainable travel options. Releasing land from the Green Belt on the edge of and in close proximity to Cambridge, where existing infrastructure can be enhanced, arguably provides the best opportunity to influence and change people’s behaviours around travel and commuting and encourage adoption of more sustainable modes of transport. Development in these locations can support residents living sustainable lifestyles, as well as living in sustainable buildings. 2.21 Paragraphs 136 and 137 of the NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation of updating of plans. Prior to concluding exceptional circumstances the policymaking authority should demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This should include: 1) making as much use of possible suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; 2) optimising the density of development; and 3) be informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities as to whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development. 2.22 In light of the pressing housing problems in Greater Cambridge and the undersupply of housing relative to economic growth, there is a clear need for the emerging Local Plan to consider what capacity exists to accommodate housing delivery on brownfield sites, through densification and the duty to cooperate. Paragraph 3.112 of the adopted Cambridge City Local Plan (2018) acknowledges the lack of available previously developed land and with the exception of the Northern Fringe East it is hard to imagine where significant numbers of additional homes will be feasibly accommodated within the urban area of Cambridge by 2040. Applying the CPIER growth scenario to the current proportion of housing allocated to the Cambridge urban area would result in the need for 5,199 additional homes until 2040 (see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020). 2.23 Applying the CPIER growth scenario to Cambridge’s urban fringes would result in the need for 9,577 additional homes, either through further urban extensions or densification. This is especially challenging when considering the sensitivity of the edge of Cambridge and the existing extent of expansion beyond its historic core. It is therefore vital that less sensitive locations on the edge of Cambridge are reviewed for Green Belt release, taking into account the opportunity to bring forward sustainable development in a location that arguably provides the best opportunity to influence and change people’s behaviours around travel and commuting and encourage adoption of more sustainable modes of transport. Development in these locations can support residents living sustainable lifestyles, as well as living in sustainable buildings. 2.24 The majority of the growth needs are anticipated to be directed to the Greater Cambridge area, particularly given the existing affordable housing needs of the area. This is pertinent given the remaining high ratio of lower quartile price to incomes in the area (Housing Market Bulletin, Hometrack, September 2019) and the 4,712 applicants currently on the combined Housing Register. 2.25 The aforementioned constraints to housing growth within Cambridge, its fringes together with a potential overreliance on new settlements presents a strong case to review Green Belt release when considering the high growth needs of the area and the overarching need to deliver growth in a holistic and sustainable way. The Green Belt is a planning designation not an environmental designation, which should be reviewed at Local Plan stage in order to consider the most sustainable growth options for the area. 2.26 The high level of housing delivery needed to sustain a rolling 5 year housing supply throughout the plan period is best met through a mix of housing sites and land availability. Sustainable growth on the edge of the City where possible and within settlements surrounding Cambridge can make an important contribution to this objective, creating opportunity to rebalance housing supply geographically across the district and tie in with improved sustainable transport measures. Not all of the villages, however, will score highly in sustainability terms or benefit from planned transport improvements. 2.27 A total of 28 villages fall wholly within the Green Belt and 10 further villages adjoin the Green Belt totaling 36% of all village settlements in the district. A significant proportion of these villages fall within a ‘higher sustainability category’ taking into account both existing service and facilities and potential sustainability enhancements. The closer thesevillages are to the City the greater the options for sustainable travel and the use of new forms of mobility (e.g. electric bikes). 2.28 Continued limits to growth in these villages through Green Belt designation will result in dispersion of housing further away from Cambridge, increasing the burden on surrounding villages to accommodate growth of the anticipated 6,294 additional homes in rural areas, contributing in turn to more unsustainable travel patterns. Such an approach would result in these surrounding villages accommodating 123 homes each if distributed equally. This would represent a significant uplift in housing delivery particularly in current ‘infill villages’ where historically housing growth has been low. For instance, between 2002-2017 Knapwell Village only saw 2 new homes completed (‘Cambridgeshire Housing Completions 2002-2017, Cambridgeshire Insight, 2019). 2.29 Limited release of Green Belt land has previously been identified in the villages of Comberton, Histon and Sawston – all of which benefit from relatively good levels of service provision, including secondary schools or colleges. There is therefore a precedent for this approach and one that must meet the strict tests Chapter 13 (Green Belt) of the NPPF. Having assessed the reasonable options for meeting identified housing need set out in paragraph 137 of the NPPF, there is a compelling case for the Councils to initiate a review of the Cambridge Green Belt in order to best meet the challenges of its housing need and direct growth to sustainable locations, enhance the sustainability of existing rural settlements and promote sustainable travel in accordance with paragraphs 78, 103 and 138 of the NPPF. In doing so, the opportunity presents itself to: • Redistribute housing delivery in the area, enabling greater access to housing outside of Cambridge City and improving the wider sustainability of the area; • Recognise the role that small and medium sized sites can make in contributing to housing need, building out quickly and maintaining a rolling 5 year housing supply; • Promote more sustainable forms of construction in rural areas and high quality design in line with Village Design Guides and the National Design Guide to enhance the character and appearance of villages; • Secure more affordable housing and provide greater housing choices to meet a range of community needs, including specialist accommodation for the elderly, self/custom build and a mix of market homes; • Rebalance the scale of growth in existing settlements to create sufficient opportunity to transform local services and infrastructure, directing more S106 funding contributions and public investment towards villages; Bolster existing and proposed village services, improving vitality, demographic mix and social sustainability; • Relieve some of the development burden on Cambridge City, redistributing travel patterns, boosting opportunities for sustainable transport and reducing carbon emissions; and, • Support green infrastructure improvements and biodiversity net gain in rural areas that have hitherto lacked such opportunities due to limited growth and investment.

2.20 Summary Answer: Applying the CPIER growth scenario to Cambridge’s urban fringes and factoring in some housing delivery at North East Cambridge and Cambridge Airport would result in the need for 6,294 additional homes on the edge of Cambridge up until 2040 see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020). This is especially challenging when considering the sensitivity of the edge of Cambridge and the existing extent of expansion beyond its historic core. The high level of housing delivery needed to sustain a rolling 5 year housing supply throughout the plan period is best met through a mix of housing sites and land availability. Sustainable growth on the edge of the City where possible and within settlements surrounding Cambridge can make an important contribution to this objective, creating opportunity to rebalance housing supply geographically across the district and provide more sustainable travel to justify potential release from the Green Belt. 2.21 Paragraphs 136 and 137 of the NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation of updating of plans. Prior to concluding exceptional circumstances the policymaking authority should demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This should include: 1) making as much use of possible suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; 2) optimising the density of development; and 3) be informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities as to whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development. 2.22 In light of the pressing housing problems in Greater Cambridge and the undersupply of housing relative to economic growth, there is a clear need for the emerging Local Plan to consider what capacity exists to accommodate housing delivery on brownfield sites, through densification and the duty to cooperate. Paragraph 3.112 of the adopted Cambridge City Local Plan (2018) acknowledges the lack of available previously developed land and with the exception of the Northern Fringe East it is hard to imagine where significant numbers of additional homes will be feasibly accommodated within the urban area of Cambridge by 2040. Applying the CPIER growth scenario to the current proportion of housing allocated to the Cambridge urban area would result in the need for 5,199 additional homes until 2040 (see Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study, 2020). 2.23 Applying the CPIER growth scenario to Cambridge’s urban fringes would result in the need for 9,577 additional homes, either through further urban extensions or densification. This is especially challenging when considering the sensitivity of the edge of Cambridge and the existing extent of expansion beyond its historic core. It is therefore vital that less sensitive locations on the edge of Cambridge are reviewed for Green Belt release, taking into account the opportunity to bring forward sustainable development in a location that arguably provides the best opportunity to influence and change people’s behaviours around travel and commuting and encourage adoption of more sustainable modes of transport. Development in these locations can support residents living sustainable lifestyles, as well as living in sustainable buildings. 2.24 The majority of the growth needs are anticipated to be directed to the Greater Cambridge area, particularly given the existing affordable housing needs of the area. This is pertinent given the remaining high ratio of lower quartile price to incomes in the area (Housing Market Bulletin, Hometrack, September 2019) and the 4,712 applicants currently on the combined Housing Register. 2.25 The aforementioned constraints to housing growth within Cambridge, its fringes together with a potential overreliance on new settlements presents a strong case to review Green Belt release when considering the high growth needs of the area and the overarching need to deliver growth in a holistic and sustainable way. The Green Belt is a planning designation not an environmental designation, which should be reviewed at Local Plan stage in order to consider the most sustainable growth options for the area. 2.26 The high level of housing delivery needed to sustain a rolling 5 year housing supply throughout the plan period is best met through a mix of housing sites and land availability. Sustainable growth on the edge of the City where possible and within settlements surrounding Cambridge can make an important contribution to this objective, creating opportunity to rebalance housing supply geographically across the district and tie in with improved sustainable transport measures. Not all of the villages, however, will score highly in sustainability terms or benefit from planned transport improvements. 2.27 A total of 28 villages fall wholly within the Green Belt and 10 further villages adjoin the Green Belt totaling 36% of all village settlements in the district. A significant proportion of these villages fall within a ‘higher sustainability category’ taking into account both existing service and facilities and potential sustainability enhancements. The closer thesevillages are to the City the greater the options for sustainable travel and the use of new forms of mobility (e.g. electric bikes). 2.28 Continued limits to growth in these villages through Green Belt designation will result in dispersion of housing further away from Cambridge, increasing the burden on surrounding villages to accommodate growth of the anticipated 6,294 additional homes in rural areas, contributing in turn to more unsustainable travel patterns. Such an approach would result in these surrounding villages accommodating 123 homes each if distributed equally. This would represent a significant uplift in housing delivery particularly in current ‘infill villages’ where historically housing growth has been low. For instance, between 2002-2017 Knapwell Village only saw 2 new homes completed (‘Cambridgeshire Housing Completions 2002-2017, Cambridgeshire Insight, 2019). 2.29 Limited release of Green Belt land has previously been identified in the villages of Comberton, Histon and Sawston – all of which benefit from relatively good levels of service provision, including secondary schools or colleges. There is therefore a precedent for this approach and one that must meet the strict tests Chapter 13 (Green Belt) of the NPPF. Having assessed the reasonable options for meeting identified housing need set out in paragraph 137 of the NPPF, there is a compelling case for the Councils to initiate a review of the Cambridge Green Belt in order to best meet the challenges of its housing need and direct growth to sustainable locations, enhance the sustainability of existing rural settlements and promote sustainable travel in accordance with paragraphs 78, 103 and 138 of the NPPF. In doing so, the opportunity presents itself to: • Redistribute housing delivery in the area, enabling greater access to housing outside of Cambridge City and improving the wider sustainability of the area; • Recognise the role that small and medium sized sites can make in contributing to housing need, building out quickly and maintaining a rolling 5 year housing supply; • Promote more sustainable forms of construction in rural areas and high quality design in line with Village Design Guides and the National Design Guide to enhance the character and appearance of villages; • Secure more affordable housing and provide greater housing choices to meet a range of community needs, including specialist accommodation for the elderly, self/custom build and a mix of market homes; • Rebalance the scale of growth in existing settlements to create sufficient opportunity to transform local services and infrastructure, directing more S106 funding contributions and public investment towards villages; Bolster existing and proposed village services, improving vitality, demographic mix and social sustainability; • Relieve some of the development burden on Cambridge City, redistributing travel patterns, boosting opportunities for sustainable transport and reducing carbon emissions; and, • Support green infrastructure improvements and biodiversity net gain in rural areas that have hitherto lacked such opportunities due to limited growth and investment.