Question 40. How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages?
See response to Qu 29 on 'flexible'. The word is itself too 'flexible' to be a useful measure of anything
No uploaded files for public display
The current approach sounds good, by protecting the country's from gradual loss through development, and will help to keep the villages unique. Provision should instead be considered for better public transport or establishment of car sharing schemes, to reduce single occupancy trips.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. As stated elsewhere (Q28) we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
The existing approach should be maintained so as to protect our small villages from over development and ribbon development.
No uploaded files for public display
Villages need growth to maintain facilities and support social well being.
No uploaded files for public display
Our Neighbourhood Plan consultations show that Village frameworks should be strengthened. Allowing the village to grow outside of the current development framework was the least popular option for finding housing sites. It was perceived to be bad for the environment due to loss of biodiversity assets and detrimental to the character of the village.
No uploaded files for public display
Our Neighbourhood Plan consultations show that Village frameworks should be strengthened. Allowing the village to grow outside of the current development framework was the least popular option for finding housing sites. It was perceived to be bad for the environment due to loss of biodiversity assets and detrimental to the character of the village. Growth around the periphery of villages presents developers with a highly profitable but environmentally unsustainable greenfield sites. Developers will never build on more complex brownfield sites if a more profitable option exists. Additionally residents outside or on the edge of the village are more likely to use a car to access shops and schools in the village centre due to the increasing distances involved.
No uploaded files for public display
Development on the edge of a village must either not happen at all if the village doesn't have a full set of amenity, education, and employment -- or the development must add what is missing.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements. We promoted our client’s site in the Council’s ‘call for sites’ process in March 2019, for residential development. This was registered by the Council as “Land to north of Station Road West and east of Duxford Road, Whittlesford.” This promotion suggested two options for development at the site in terms of site area/number of dwellings. Please let us know if any additional details are required in respect of this promotion. The site promoted by our client in March 2019 comprises an extension to development framework for the village. This is a natural extension adjacent to existing residential development. It is ideally situated for housing for families with young children as it lies in close proximity to various facilities and services immediately nearby. In such instances, where local facilities and services are easily accessible by a range of transport modes, the Council should be very flexible over development in such locations. It is appropriate to locate development which is accessible to such facilities/services and employment opportunities and which will promote the three dimensions of sustainable development, outlined in the NPPF.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements. We promoted our client’s land in the Council’s ‘call for sites’ process in March 2019, for approximately 45 dwellings. This was registered by the Council as “Land at Maarnford Farm, Hunts Road, Duxford”. The promoted site comprises a small extension to development framework for Duxford. This is a natural extension adjacent to existing residential development at Maarnford Close. It is ideally situated for housing for families with young children as it lies in close proximity to the primary school and the recreation ground for Duxford village. The centre of the village (approximately 500 metres away), is accessible by dedicated cycle and pedestrian routes as well as a convenient local road network. In such instances, where local facilities and services are easily accessible by a range of transport modes, the Council should be very flexible over development in such locations. it is appropriate to locate development which is accessible to such facilities/services and employment opportunities and which will promote the three dimensions of sustainable development, outlined in the NPPF.
No uploaded files for public display
The Plan must recognise that the sustainability of smaller settlements and their long term future is predicated on their ability to provide homes, employment opportunities, services and facilities in the one settlement. It is therefore essential that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to allow windfall developments on the edge of villages as well as making specific allocations such as the Land off Comberton Road, Toft, surrounded as it is on three sides (one residential and two employment), for development. Such flexibility will help existing settlements to diversify their population, provide local people the opportunity to live within their communities and help to create a critical mass of population sufficient to attract and sustain business and services.
No uploaded files for public display
The Plan must recognise that the sustainability of smaller settlements and their long term future is predicated on their ability to provide homes, employment opportunities, services and facilities in the one settlement. It is therefore essential that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to allow windfall developments on the edge of villages as well as making specific allocations such as the Land off Ashwell Road, Steeple Morden, surrounded as it is on all sides (two residential and two employment), for development. Such flexibility will help existing settlements to diversify their population, provide local people the opportunity to live within their communities and help to create a critical mass of population sufficient to attract and sustain business and services.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements, such as Histon.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
We support the principle of removing land from the Green Belt if it provides a sustainable development option in terms of travel and climate change impacts. There are limited opportunities to locate significant new housing within the urban area of Cambridge and it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for major development at Cambridge (Marshalls) Airport. Some further development may be allocated to appropriate rural villages (as per question 47) and there is limited brownfield land to consider but, the likely total level of new housing being contemplated inevitably means that a Green Belt review is required. This is likely to be a major and possibly contentious exercise, so we believe that the sooner the Councils grasp this decision the better. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan required the release of Green Belt land and the factors which drove that change still exist today – possibly more so. This is even more important given that the Consultation Paper floats the idea of accommodating housing above the standard method level to meet jobs growth. It is therefore apparent that Green Belt release will be required if transport and climate change objectives are to be met - i.e. significant further development should be located on the Cambridge fringe rather than in locations significantly beyond the extent of the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale, the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. As stated in question 28 we believe it is highly appropriate to allocate new areas of employment land at suitable (i.e. key) rural settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. In response to this question, consideration should also be given to the release of Green Belt land immediately adjoining larger settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. In response to this question, consideration should also be given to the release of Green Belt land immediately adjoining larger settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
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; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. On the basis of the above, it is requested that an assessment of the capacity of existing settlements to accommodate development is undertaken for the emerging GCLP with a mind to relaxing village development boundaries to allow for suitable sites to come forward.
No uploaded files for public display
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; 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 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing framework boundaries in Group Villages, and Meldreth is an example where there are few opportunities within the boundary. 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, including Meldreth, 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 and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and would provide some flexibility about development within village boundaries so that the form and scale of development reflects site specific characteristics.
No uploaded files for public display
The College considers the degree of flexibility will relate to the nature and circumstances of the individual villages concerned. The College’s Duxford “Call for Sites” proposals are based on a clear vision for the sustainable and strategic expansion of Duxford village. The proposals would provide many new jobs (circa 1800-2400) and new homes (circa 800) in a sustainable mixed-use development and, given the College has long been the single owner of the land concerned, it would be able to ensure high quality and expedient delivery. Figure 25 of the “Issues and Options” shows that Cambridgeshire villages are largely within or adjacent to the Green Belt and therefore often constrained. By contrast, the College’s Duxford proposals occupy an almost unique position. The expanded village area lies outside the Green Belt, alongside a public transport rail corridor, adjacent to the existing Duxford village, with its social and community infrastructure, the world renowned IWM Duxford the other side of the M11 and surrounded by a number of existing employment centres. Duxford village is itself now showing slower population growth and with it, the potential for an eroding service base unless positive action is taken. The College’s proposals to expand the village would therefore not only deliver new jobs and homes, but also safeguard the existing village’s sustainable future with needed additional services and infrastructure. At the same time, it would introduce a major new high-tech aviation related cluster (circa 110,000 sq. m) with synergy to existing local employment, IWM and other aviation related businesses in the Cambridge area. It would create a truly mixed use and substantiable development optimising the level of self-containment as well as achieving many other Local Plan goals such as a net increase in biodiversity through a new Country Park and associated new hedge and tree cover. In this context, the College considers the “Call for Sites” proposals accord fully with NPPF 72 which states that ….”The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy-making authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way”. (our bold italics) Lastly, the land has been in ownership of the College for hundreds of years and through its ownership, the College promotes, as well as a history of, good stewardship to ensure the quality and certainty of delivery.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
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; 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 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing framework boundaries in Group Villages, and Balsham is an example where there are few opportunities within the boundary. In any event, there are numerous examples between 2014 and 2019 when planning applications were approved and appeals were allowed, including in Balsham, 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 and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned, and would provide some flexibility about development within village boundaries so that the form and scale of development reflects site specific characteristics.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in location terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites.
No uploaded files for public display
It is noted that the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire, including Cottenham, have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004; although sites were allocated in 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 noted that in recent years a number of planning applications have approved and appeals have been allowed for residential developments on sites located outside the settlement boundary for Cottenham. It is not clear whether the Councils have undertaken an assessment of the capacity of villages, including Cottenham, to accommodate additional development; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. Cottenham is designated as a Rural Centre. It has a good range of services and facilities including a supermarket and convenience stores; post office; doctors surgeries; dentist; library; public houses; restaurant/takeaway; bank; schools; village hall and meeting spaces. If, as expected, there is limited capacity for additional development in Cottenham then additional sites on the edge of the settlement should be identified in emerging CGLP.
No uploaded files for public display
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; it is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited. The development framework boundary for Great Abington is tightly drawn around the areas of built development, and as a result there are limited opportunities for infill development within the defined boundary both now and in the future. In these circumstances, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages., including at Great Abington. This suggested approach would ensure that sufficient land is allocated for development at villages to support services and facilities and ensure that sufficient physical and community infrastructure can be planned.
No uploaded files for public display
Large scale development of either houses or businesses on the edges of small, infill only, villages is not appropriate. Such development would change and damage these villages with ribbon development out of keeping with the location. These villages should retain their existing infill only category. The current categories work well.
No uploaded files for public display
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; 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 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings on previously developed sites) within existing framework boundaries in Group Villages, and Dry Drayton is an example where there are few opportunities within the boundary. 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 and ensure that sufficient affordable housing is provided to meet local needs in villages, including in Dry Drayton.
No uploaded files for public display
Subject to definition of an appropriate scale the Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. This may also help meet the NPPF requirement for 10% of houses to be provided on small sites. In response to this question, consideration should also be given to the release of Green Belt land immediately adjoining larger settlements.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display