Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

55. Existing employment and business locations within Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres should be protected to ensure they maintain the level of services and employment in these sustainable village locations. 56. A number of employment sites in rural centres have already been lost to housing allocations which in turn can reduce the sustainability of such villages. Further loss should be prevented by considering alternative options for new housing such as redrawing the village boundaries and allocating edge of village sites.

57. In order to adequately respond to changing housing needs over the Local Plan period, flexibility and variety in the amount and type of new homes is required. 58. As stated in response to Question 5, this can be achieved by avoiding reliance on a single growth strategy, and instead adopting a mixed and flexible approach to identifying and allocating new housing sites of different sizes and in different locations across the entire plan area. This will ensure a range of different housing types and products will come forward which are appropriate to the site context and development size and will help meet demand for housing in all locations including established settlements and villages. 59. Additionally, Cambridgeshire has significant housing affordability issue which will only increase as job growth continues, and the Greater Cambridge Plan must seek to significantly exceed minimum housing requirements to begin to rebalance this issue, and ensure a range of different affordable housing types can be delivered.

Nothing chosen

60. Local Housing Need figures are a minima and the intention should be to exceed the number of homes required by the Government both to provide flexibility and meet affordability challenges. In order to be robust and sound, the number of sites and dwellings to be allocated by the Plan should exceed the objectively assessed need to reflect the reality that some allocated sites will not come forward in the plan period or deliver the number of homes they are allocated for. 61. Additionally, this is particularly the case when considering the aspirations for growth in jobs and economies across the district. Greater Cambridge’s current and future housing need is largely driven by the employment growth targeted as part of doubling the regional GVA by 2041. Research by Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Commission (CPIEC) clearly shows that the quantity of land/sites allocated for housing will need to be significantly more than that currently planned for in the Local Plans. 62. Evidence on job density and economic activity shows there is little capacity among existing Greater Cambridge residents to expand the workforce and economic growth will need to rely on workers migrating or commuting into the area to avoid to not be limited. This places continuing pressure and demand on the housing market and to date, demand has vastly surpassed supply, creating a severe affordability issue. Therefore, the volume of house building needs to significantly increase across the district and exceed minimum requirements in order to prevent economic growth in Greater Cambridge stalling and housing unaffordability increasing. 63. Allocating land for additional housing, above minimum targets, would also ensure there is sufficient flexibility within the Local Plan to respond to changing housing needs/trends over the Local Plan period.

Nothing chosen

64. Whilst there are different advantages and challenges for each growth option as recognised by the consultation material, significant weight must be given to the NPPF in considering which growth options are appropriate to progress. The NPPF (paragraphs 133 and 136) is clear that great importance is attached to Green Belt and boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. 65. Paragraph 137 explicitly requires the strategic policy-making authority to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. Compliance with this process will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies. 66. Therefore, the onus is on the GC authority to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for growth have been exhausted before releasing Green Belt, regardless of the potential sustainability benefits of Green Belt locations. 67. Therefore, it is clear that edge of village locations outside of the Green Belt, such as Linton, which present a suitable, available and sustainable location for development must be given significant weight and consideration for allocation before any land can be released from Green Belt. 68. If further sites are required to meet growth needs once all edge of village and edge of Cambridge sites outside the Green Belt have been assessed and, where appropriate, allocated, then the Green Belt boundaries can then be changed and justified as necessary.

Highly flexible

69. Significant flexibility should be given towards the development of housing and jobs on the edge of villages, particularly for Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres as identified in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. 70. Edge of village locations provide new development with access to established communities as well as services and other infrastructure which make them an ideal location for additional jobs and homes. 71. For example, Linton is identified as a Minor Rural Centre which are villages with a greater level of services, facilities and employment than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire, and often perform a role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland. Providing additional homes in this location would deliver social and economic benefits which weigh heavily on presumption in favour of sustainable development, 72. Given this, the settlement boundaries for existing Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres should be reconsidered and reassessed particularly where edge of village sites are promoted for sustainable development. 73. Additionally, the NPPF encourages planning policies to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. As noted previously, edge of village sites tend to be smaller and within single ownership with less constraints than larger strategic allocations. This means they are a reliable and robust source for housing delivery and where such sites are immediately available, significant flexibility should be given to allow sustainable development to be delivered quickly.

Somewhat flexible

74. Yes, particularly within Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres where the indicative maxima number of dwellings for sites should be removed to allow the assessment of appropriate densities to take place on a site-by-site basis. This will ensure the most efficient use of land can be made, as is appropriate to the sites context, in line with the requirements of the NPPF. 75. The boundaries of village frameworks should also be re-assessed to allow sustainable sites abutting the existing village boundaries to come forward where appropriate. This will open up a large new supply of small and medium sized housing sites which can be delivered immediately as the necessary infrastructure and services to serve the new resident already exist.

78. Please see response to Question 39.

79. If the correct mechanisms are not in place to ensure that new settlements are delivered as intended during the Plan period, then reliance on such allocations for meeting housing need would not be effective or sound in meeting housing and job needs. 80. In recent years, a number of Local Authorities have been criticised, and Local Plans have failed at Examination, due to relying on such limited approaches. The most recent being the St Albans Local Plan Examination in January 2020 where the Planning Inspector cancelled the remaining hearings after the first week. This decision was made following discussions focusing on the proposed allocation of a Garden Village to provide 2,300 new homes and the significant concerns about delivering the allocation as the site also benefitted from planning permission for a rail interchange. 81. New settlements can contribute significantly to meeting housing need but cannot be relied upon as the sole solution. The above demonstrates that there are real risks associated with simply relying on large urban extensions or any single solution to delivering housing need and that a range of sites must be allocated in order to provide a robust supply of housing.

82. Please refer to response to Question 40.

83. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy S/5 set a target for 19,500 new homes between 20112031. Some of this target had already been completed/committed at the time of adoption but the remainder of housing delivery supply relied on three major strategic site allocations which were anticipated to provide a further 13,700 (70%) of these homes. 84. As stated within the response to Question 46, a move away from simply relying a small number of large allocations is needed. Smaller and medium sized sites must also be considered to ensure that a robust supply of sites are allocated which delivers growth in the right locations across the district throughout the entire Plan period. 85. Furthermore, the reference within Policy S/6 to limiting residential development and redevelopment to up 30 dwellings in Minor Rural Centres should be removed. It would be more appropriate to consider housing numbers and densities on a case-by-case basis taking into account the local context and need for housing. This is particularly the case as the range and number of services, facilities and employment vary amongst different rural centres. A more flexible policy approach should be taken to new development in or adjacent to these better serviced rural centres as they can deliver growth in sustainable locations and make best use of existing services, facilities and employment opportunities.