Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

1.61 Development along highway corridors results in heavily car dependent developments such as Cambourne. The financial implications of then retrofitting these developments with public transport is significant and often results in suboptimal routes. Public transport corridors are better but can still be too heavily dependent on the level of certainty over delivery and timing of enhanced public transport infrastructure. Cambourne and Bourn Airfield demonstrate this with the considerable delay to the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journeys proposals as a result of concerns about routing options. 1.62 Cycle infrastructure is often faster and easier to deliver. The proposed Comberton greenway is a good example of what can be delivered within existing highways land. The proposed greenways that are to be delivered across the district add further weight to the development of sites along these cycle corridors, sites like our client’s at Bennell Farm.

S/7: Development Frameworks 1.63 Policy S/7 is overly restrictive and can prevent small windfall sites on the edges of some of the districts more sustainable rural locations from coming forward. The approach to directing new residential development to the most sustainable locations in the district is a sound planning principle. However, as presently worded Policy S/7 does not allow for the most effective use of land in sustainable locations where the impact upon the countryside would be limited. 1.64 For example, an application for a dwelling outside the development framework of Cottenham, which could be outside the Green Belt and in close proximity to the services of this Rural Centre, would be refused under Policy S/7. Whereas, a dwelling within the development framework of Knapwell, an Infill Village with no services, would be approved. The need to prevent gradual encroachment into the countryside is acknowledged but where edge of village development is sensitive to its locality then planners should have greater flexibility to look at the individual merits of a site based on proximity to services, degree of enclosure, etc. This would allow them to exercise their own planning judgement as to whether the proposal result in a sustainable form of development that would outweigh any impact upon the rural landscape. 1.65 Other Local Planning Authorities are proposing policies that are more flexible when it comes to considering developments on the edges of settlements. As part of the 2019 review of its Local Plan West Norfolk and Kings Lynn Borough Council has included the following Policy LP26 (Residential Development Adjacent to Existing Settlements). This policy allows greater flexibility to the development of land on the edges of settlements, outside development boundaries, where the criteria of the policy are met. It also attaches weight to the use of such land to accommodate self-build dwellings. 1.66 The Greater Cambridge Local plan should consider a similarly worded policy that identifies the criteria for small-scale developments on the edges of settlements, outside development frameworks, that infill gaps or are sensitive to the locality. By attaching weight to the provision of plots for self-build such a policy could boost the supply of housing and address the needs of people on the Councils’ self-build registers. H/16: Development of Residential Gardens 1.67 The criteria of policy H/16 do not specifically preclude the development of land outside of development frameworks. However, developments within existing gardens, or land last used as residential garden, are being refused based on not being compliant with Policy S/7. Therefore, the wording of this Policy needs to be updated to clarify that the development of existing residential gardens outside of development frameworks, where encroachment of residential uses has already occurred, is acceptable in sustainable locations. These are also ideal locations where an amended wording of the Policy could encourage the effective use of land to accommodate self-build plots. E/14: Loss of Employment Land to Non-Employment Uses 1.68 Policy E/14 is a useful tool in retaining employment sites but there are examples of where the strict interpretation of the criteria of the policy have delayed acceptable developments from coming forward. The former Plumbs Dairy site in Balsham is a site that would never have been suitable as a modern employment site. However, an application for residential use of the site was almost refused due to a lack of marketing of the site (S/0460/17/FL). The site had significant constraints that meant a residential use was the only option for the redevelopment of the site. The case officer successfully argued that the development of the site for residential was acceptable without it being marketed as an employment site. The use of the site for employment had ceased after the dairy relocated to Linton and the site was only viable as a development site with the addition of adjacent garden land. However, if the case officer had blindly adhered to the strict criteria of Policy E/14 the site would not have been developed and would most likely have remained vacant for a further 12 months until it had been marketed as an employment site. 1.69 The criteria of Policy E/14 should be amended so that officers have greater flexibility to take other material considerations, such as the commercial viability of redeveloping existing employment sites to meet modern employment requirements, into account when determining planning applications. Where such sites are in sustainable locations a more flexible approach to loss of out-dated and constrained employment sites will help to boost the supply of new homes by making the most efficient use of previously developed land.