Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Some growth at villages can help sustain existing communities. The take-up of neighbourhood planning has been poor with only one made Neighbourhood Plan within South Cambridgeshire at the time of writing. As a result, this planning tool has not been as successful in delivering localised non-strategic growth to date. With only 18 other designated NP areas and little progress on each, there can be little or no reliance upon NP’s as a source of housing land supply during the plan period. Many villages have been identified by planning inspectors on appeal as being sustainable locations for proportionate growth. In order for a Neighbourhood Plan to be in a position to review its Green Belt boundaries, it requires a level of policy support within the strategic policies of the GCLP. As suggested through the response to Q.31, this should occur in order to meet the requirements of NPPF paragraph 65. Great Shelford is one of those settlements where the Parish Council of Stapleford and Great Shelford is preparing a Neighbourhood Plan. However, its ability to deliver growth is currently restricted by Green Belt boundaries. Para 31 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plans consider relevant market signals. There is a known affordability issue within rural South Cambridgeshire area and the plan must look to positively address this issue. Local Housing Need is derived across the whole area, and the villages also need a sufficient mix of market and affordable homes to ‘support vibrant rural communities.’ For example, using the latest Gt Shelford Village Housing Needs Survey (March 2017) prepared by Acre, there was an identified requirement for 97 affordable homes to meet current and immediate housing need in Great Shelford. There is no opportunity to deliver this level of growth within the existing settlement confines and it is otherwise constrained by green belt. A localised Green Belt release, such as the Land off Cambridge Road, could contribute significantly towards providing a high proportion of that need as part of a housing development. For example, at 120 units, 40% provision of affordable housing would be 48 homes to meet identified need. Similarly, with regard to older persons accommodation, Great Shelford differs from the district and county profiles in two key respects, one being a higher proportion of older people (75+). The Acre study identified other housing needs from owner occupiers requiring an alternative form of accommodation for downsizing and/or single-level living. The options put forward for the site through the 2019 Call for Sites exercise includes the potential to accommodate a 60-bed care home (Use Class C2) or Older Persons accommodation (C3). Again, this can only occur through a Green Belt release and a recognition that Green Belt boundaries will need to be reviewed. We refer officers to our 2019 Call for Sites response which outlines the previous Green Belt reviews undertaken by the Council’s and its conclusions that development of the site would have a ‘negligible impact upon the Green Belt and could be considered for release in the short-term’. Such sites can clearly contribute towards delivering the growth strategy in a sustainable manner. We consider there should be a more proactive and positive plan that provides more clarity for local communities and meets the development needs of Green Belt villages in a sustainable manner. This is considered to be more in keeping with the thrust of the NPPF to boost the supply of housing and maintain a rolling 5-year supply of suitable housing sites throughout the lifetime of the plan. We consider that a balanced portfolio of housing sites in terms of geography, quantum and tenure is essential to the success of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. To deliver the economic growth scenario, there is a need to utilise different approaches of delivery, such as proportionate extensions to sustainable villages, including Green Belt settlements where there are clear sustainable reasons to do so and specifically, where there would be no overall reduction in the objectives, or effectiveness of Green Belt policy.

No choices made

Response to Question 42 It is not a question of ranking these options individually. It is inevitable that no one option will deliver a sound spatial strategy and coherent Local Plan. The end solution is likely to be a mix of some of these spatial options, depending on land availability; the influence of planned and committed infrastructure projects; market choice; avoiding market saturation; maintaining pace of delivery etc. We consider there will need to be a mix of site sizes that combine to (at least) maintain the required annual housing levels and to deliver the overall housing trajectory throughout the lifetime of the plan. A balanced distribution of growth would also include locating some proportional growth to the villages, including Green belt settlements. For example, Great Shelford has a high level of supporting infrastructure including good access to retail centres and employment areas. Its growth has been constrained due to the tight Green Belt boundaries. The proposed site off Cambridge Road is accessible and benefits from the existing public transport infrastructure plus the potential new infrastructure to be delivered by the East-West rail project.