Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

4.66 The designation and permanence of the Green Belt boundary is key to its success to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The boundaries should only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the councils have has fully examined all other reasonable alternatives for meeting the identified need. We do not believe this is necessary at this stage.

4.67 The councils’ approach to development has already included planned new settlements. There is often a significant lead in time and a community is not created by the physical delivery of buildings. It can take time to develop and for a community to form.

4.68 The councils’ previous approach has been to restrict development in the villages. The NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, paragraphs 77 to 78. Of critical importance is paragraph 78 where it states “Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where there this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” The current adopted policy is extremely prescriptive in relation to the defined boundary and does not act in this manner. The councils have accepted that greenfield land would need to be released and we agree with the general development strategy approach to locate development in locations where people can choose to walk or cycle to local services. 4.69 To allow development in certain village that are sustainable would help to support existing facilities and provide wider opportunities in these villages and increase diversity. If a reasonable level of development is permitted this would ensure a range of house types, tenures etc and employment that would add to diversity. This would require a different approach to settlement hierarchy than in the current adopted Local Plan. If the councils are intending to be innovative, it is important that is fully taken into account in relation to how businesses and residents will communicate and use services in the future such as shops, GP surgeries etc. 4.70 We believe development should be provided within the villages to provide a balanced sustainable pattern of development for the future that allows the rural areas to complement the main strategic growth centres that are already committed and planned. The failure to identify growth within other settlements will act as a constraint and will restrict and not support the approach identified to support a thriving rural economy and provide inclusive communities. 4.71 We believe that a settlement hierarchy should be developed based on sustainability criteria for the villages. The level of services and facilities available in the villages varies significantly and this will be an important consideration. 4.72 In relation to the land the subject of these representations, the settlements should be considered as a combined assessment due to the vast range of services and facilities available. This approach is supported by paragraph 78 of the NPPF where it acknowledges that in a rural situation not all the services need or will be in one settlement. Development in one settlement can clearly support the needs of others. This supports our submissions that a more detailed assessment of services/facilities should be considered in respect of the designation for small settlements in the Plan. It is highly unusual that two villages within such close proximity offer a full range of educational services, preschool, primary schools, special needs schools, secondary school, a range of employment opportunities, new proposed cycle and footpath links and proposed improvements to existing public transport links. 4.73 The current adopted Local Plan relies heavily on the larger sites coming forward to deliver housing/employment and this can often be restricted due to the delivery of infrastructure. Smaller site allocations would provide a variety of delivery without such constraints and a broader market offering. It is important however, to ensure that sites are allocated to provide certainty.

4.74 No comment.

4.75 The polices have provided a strict hierarchical approach to development that has not supported the growth and vitality of the rural areas. The line drawn that defines whether a site is within the development framework boundary or outside has no regard to the contribution a piece of land contributes to the area. The boundaries have not necessarily been viewed on the ground for effectiveness and yet the impact on the decision process is significant. The NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, paragraphs 77 to 78. Of critical importance is paragraph 78 where it states “Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where there this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” This is relevant in the case for Meldreth and Melbourn where there are a range of facilities, but the boundaries are strictly drawn. 4.76 Policy S/6 – This policy sets out the hierarchy and preference of order for development on the edge of Cambridge, new settlements and lastly the rural area, rural centres and minor rural centres. 4.77 S/9 – This policy classifies Melbourn as a minor rural centre where development up to 30 units would be allowed within the development framework boundary. 4.78 S/10 - This policy classifies Meldreth as a group village where development up to 8 dwellings within the framework may be appropriate. 4.79 The focus for the classification is based on a review of services and facilities, education, public transport, and employment available at the settlement.

4.80 No comments.

Nothing chosen

"4.7 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan aims to create key economic corridors that will be impact the planned growth. This is shown in Figure 7 that identifies the key economic corridors, namely The Oxford-Cambridge Arc, London-Stansted-Cambridge and the Cambridge-Norwich tech corridor as shown in the following extract: 4.8 The impact of this anticipated growth would extend well beyond the immediate adjoining authorities boundaries. The Government has endorsed the Commission’s report, Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc which includes an ambition for up to one million high-quality new homes by 2050. It has also committed to completing the East West Rail link and an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, and to achieving sustainable growth in the Arc while improving the environment for future generations. 4.9 We agree that the right cross boundary issues have been highlighted but the engagement with all the relevant stakeholders goes well beyond working with neighbouring authorities. This needs to be considered as part of the wider impact on the area."

Nothing chosen

"4.5 The councils are anticipating adoption in 2023. Having regard to the current timescales and work required prior to adoption , this would only leave 17 years up to 2040 for the plan period. The climate change strategy also refers to net zero by 2050, 10 years beyond the plan period. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states a Local Plan should cover a minimum period of 15 years from adoption. 4.6 There are also significant areas of growth identified in the Plan including the Oxford/Cambridge Arc. This scale and nature of development is of a strategic nature and the plan period may not be sufficient to ensure delivery within this timeframe. There is already an acknowledgement that if the level of growth continues at current levels, a review of housing/employment numbers would need to take place during the plan period. If a longer plan period is not considered appropriate, it is essential that the Plan is flexible to change and allow further allocations of land to meet the needs identified. If this does not occur, the level of growth will either be restricted or led by appeal."

4.2 We agree that it is essential to reach out to wider groups in the consultation process and ensure that stakeholders are fully aware of the approach to development within the area. Development is often viewed as having a negative impact by existing communities, and it is essential that the positive aspects of growth are appropriately presented.

No choices made

We believe that these themes are inter-related, and it is therefore incorrect to prioritise them. Each proposed development needs to contribute to a comprehensive approach to development not only in the immediate area but the wider context in relation to the visions for Greater Cambridge.