Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites for residential development which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018) sets out information on the affordable housing needed to meet local needs of all of the villages in the District. In 2018 the affordable housing needs for those with a local connection to various villages in South Cambridgeshire where EDBF is promoting sites are as follows: • Great Eversden 3 dwellings; • Little Eversden 12 dwellings; • Fowlmere 19 dwellings; • Fulbourn 83 dwellings; • Great Wilbraham 7 dwellings; • Graveley 2 dwellings; • Guilden Morden 10 dwellings; • Harlton 7 dwellings; • Landbeach 20 dwellings; • Stapleford 26 dwellings; • Tadlow 0 dwellings; • Waterbeach 116 dwellings; • Whittlesford 48 dwellings. Therefore, in most of these villages there is substantial local need for affordable housing, but an insufficient number of sites coming forward to meet those needs and typically no available sites within existing village framework boundaries. In these circumstances it is requested that additional development sites must be allocated in emerging GCLP so that existing and future affordable housing needs are met during the plan period. It is noted that South Cambridgeshire District Council is a vanguard authority for self-build housing. However, it has been determined at appeal that there is a significant shortfall in the delivery of self-build housing in the District (see Appeal Ref. APP/W0530/W/19/3230103). Therefore, it is requested that emerging GCLP should allocate development sites that can provide self-build plots to meet the identified needs. The sites promoted for development by EDBF would include housing, affordable housing and potentially self-build plots.

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that development is located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Therefore, the site selection process for potential allocations in emerging CGLP will be an important part of increasing travel by sustainable modes of transport. The sites promoted by EDBF are mostly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport to the services and facilities within the villages. In most cases the sites are also well-related to the transport infrastructure improvements proposed by Greater Cambridge Partnership, including new public transport routes into Cambridge, rural travel hubs, new cycle routes and greenways. The sites promoted by EDBF at Fulbourn, Stapleford, Sawston, Whittlesford and Waterbeach in particular are very well connected by sustainable modes of transport. It is for these reasons that the sites promoted by EDBF should be allocated in the emerging GCLP.

Yes

Yes. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge, increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. It is considered that the sites promoted for development by EDBF in the Green Belt make a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. The promoted developments in the Green Belt would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and would not lead to the merging of villages. Therefore, as set out in the call for sites submissions for EDBF the sites should be released from the Green Belt to meet needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. As set out in the response to Qu.33 there is a significant local need for affordable housing in most villages in South Cambridgeshire. In addition, as set out in the call for sites submission for EDBF, land at Milton and Fulbourn should be released from the Green Belt to meet needs for employment growth.

Nothing chosen

It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004; although sites were allocated within and on the edge of some villages in the Site Specific Allocations DPD in 2010 and for the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages to accommodate additional development within the development framework boundaries; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the current site size threshold limits in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 are largely irrelevant and ineffective e.g. there are few outstanding development opportunities for up to 30 dwellings in Minor Rural Centres, 8 dwellings in Group Villages or 2 dwellings in Infill Villages. In any event, there are numerous examples between 2014 and 2019 when planning applications were approved and appeals were allowed on sites within and on the edge of settlements that were contrary to the existing site size threshold limits. Therefore, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages, in conjunction with a general policy that supports development within existing framework boundaries but without specifying any size limits. This suggested approach would ensure that sufficient land is allocated for development at villages to support services and facilities, ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and affordable housing needs would be met. This approach would also provide some flexibility so that development can reflect site specific characteristics.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The sites promoted for development by EDBF would support the existing services and facilities within those villages, typically including the convenience/village stores, primary schools, and bus services. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years, and that such sites are located within villages in South Cambridgeshire. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites, including those promoted by EDBF, are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of planmaking. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the sites promoted for development by EDBF are mostly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport to the services and facilities within the villages, and in some cases are well-related to the transport improvement projects proposed by Greater Cambridge Partnership.

It is considered that the current Important Countryside Frontage designation (Policy NH/13 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018) directly affects the opportunity for some villages to grow. It is requested that the current Important Countryside Frontage policy and designations are reviewed in order to determine the extent of the frontage that needs to be retained and whether some or all of the land to the rear could be developed. In most villages there are a variety of designations that prevent or limit the opportunity for development including Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Protected Open Space and Protected Village Amenity Areas. It is considered that the Important Countryside Frontage designation adds a further policy layer preventing the delivery of development in those villages where it applies. It is requested that the Important Countryside Frontage designations are reviewed and amended through emerging GCLP so that suitable sites are allocated and identified development needs are met. It is considered that a suitably designed development could be delivered at most sites promoted by EDBF where the Important Countryside Frontage applies, which protects and retains the character of the site frontage and provides additional landscaping at the site boundary in conjunction with additional housing and open space. This approach would allow for some small-scale growth at the villages where EDBF is promoting sites for development.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 It is considered that in reality the development strategy for emerging GCLP will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options, including development at the more sustainable villages. The scale of development that occurs at individual villages will depend on the level of services and facilities. The villages where EDBF is promoting sites could accommodate additional development, as explained in the call for sites submissions.