Question 40. How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages?
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, with Longstanton being a good example which can share the infrastructure and facilities being provided in the Northstowe development
No uploaded files for public display
8.1 The most effective approach to delivering the levels of development required is to ensure a wide variety of sites are allocated both in terms of size and location. This will ensure the consistent delivery across the plan period by not concentrating all development in a specific area or resulting in an over reliance on large strategic sites. 8.2 While a range of development scenarios are outlined the Council should not rely on one strategy, a combination is required to ensure a sound plan. This should allow appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages, in particular, if development meets a particular local business or community need as set out within Para. 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under Para. 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local 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.
No uploaded files for public display
The Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF states that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should: identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare; unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved. The site promoted at Albert Road, meets these criteria and means that it could be delivered within five years, thereby making a positive contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply. The Council should give significant weight to such sites in their development strategy for the district as they deliver dwellings in the short-medium term and can ensure choice and competition in the market.
No uploaded files for public display
The Greater Cambridge area consists of Cambridge City, a Green Belt and an extensive rural hinterland in South Cambridgeshire containing many villages. The current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan has set out a hierarchy of villages that it says reflects the ability to deliver sustainable development. However, this Joint Plan has to deliver a strategy to meet all the growth needs across the joint area in a sustainable way. Clearly there are limitations to the capacity of Cambridge to provide for growth and the Green Belt is in part, designed to restrict the outward expansion of the urban area. It is necessary therefore that the more sustainable villages will have a role in meeting a proportion of development need as part of the development strategy as part of the balanced approach to the provision of new sites for housing and jobs. This accords with the advice in para 78 of the NPPF that seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. In determining the sustainability of villages and their capacity to take growth the Council will need to revisit the Village Classification evidence to reflect the significant changes in public transport provision envisaged as part of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Transport Plan. As a result, far greater weight should be given to the accessibility of villages to the planned public transport improvements, these sustainable transport corridors and the ability to create more sustainable community infrastructure by growing those settlements. Moreover, it is clear that the current hierarchy that seeks to limit the number of new homes in each village type has substantially underestimated the ability of villages to accommodate sustainable growth. By way of example the 2018 Local Plan sets out a limit of 8, or exceptionally 15 dwellings in third tier S/10 Group Villages such as Hardwick. However, planning permissions have been granted for up to 250 new homes in Hardwick since 2016, highlighting that it is a sustainable location with capacity to accommodate a much higher level of growth. The current basis for a hierarchy and the scale of potential development in appropriate villages should be reviewed in the context of the planned investment in public transport corridors such as the Cambridge to Cambourne corridor. In particular, the Councils should grasp the opportunity to increase the delivery of small and medium sized sites in villages that are located in strategic transport corridors. Given the level of proposed investment in public transport between Cambourne and Cambridge, Hardwick should be identified as a village capable of providing small and medium sized sites because of its improving accessibility to a range of services and facilities in both Cambridge and Cambourne by means other than the car. This will ensure it is has direct public transport access to the secondary school and the range of other facilities in Cambourne along with the wide range of provision in Cambridge
No uploaded files for public display
homes on the edge of villages? The Local Plan should be flexible in respect of growth on the edge of villages provided that those are appropriate villages in locational terms. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF states that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved. The site promoted through the Council’s call-for-sites process to the east and west of Horningsea Road could be allocated in whole or part and it could be that a smaller development would make a significant contribution to the Council’s five year housing supply as it could be delivered at an early stage.
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, including in Balsham, 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. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to support sustainable development in rural areas. It is considered that additional development within and on the edge of villages to support the vitality and viability of those villages must be part of the strategy for the emerging GCLP. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF 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. It is expected that at least 10% of the overall housing requirement would be met on sites of less than 1 hectare. It is considered that the allocation of sites on the edge of villages would be consistent with the requirement to specifically allocate small and medium sized sites, and allow for the incremental growth of those villages. 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. Balsham is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development at sites on the edge of the village, as explained in the call for sites submission for land south of Old House Road.
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 Eltisely 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 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
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 Council’s 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 30 dwellings within existing framework boundaries in Minor Rural Centres, and Bassingbourn is an example where there are few opportunities within the boundary. In any event, there are numerous examples, including in Bassingbourn, 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. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to support sustainable development in rural areas. It is considered that additional development within and on the edge of villages to support the vitality and viability of those villages must be part of the strategy for the emerging GCLP. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF 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. It is expected that at least 10% of the overall housing requirement would be met on sites of less than 1 hectare. It is considered that the allocation of sites on the edge of villages would be consistent with the requirement to specifically allocate small and medium sized sites, and allow for the incremental growth of those villages. 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. Bassingbourn is an example of a settlement that could accommodate additional development at sites on the edge of the village, as explained in the call for sites submissions for the developments promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn.
No uploaded files for public display
There may be some scope for village development as part of an overall development strategy, but the priority must be to develop sites for jobs and homes in the most sustainable locations, meaning in the City of Cambridge and on its urban edge.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Much would depend on the size of village and the pattern of development of the settlement. The risk would arise of outlying plots being developed for houses for millionaires, or of ribbon development occurring. Large scale commercial developments and the associated traffic could quickly destroy rural ambience. Generally speaking, the current scheme of village frameworks and categories of settlements works well and supports communities seeking to preserve their sense of place. In the case of rural exception sites, more proposals might come forward if each community was not under a requirement to prove there was a need for affordable housing. It should surely be possible to take it as read that there was a need in the Plan area for such housing, so that Parishes would find it easier to initiate exception site projects.
No uploaded files for public display
It makes no sense just to build more homes in villages if they just become commuter villages to jobs elsewhere. Every new housing development must include the equivalent number of jobs to be collocated.
No uploaded files for public display
• The answer to this question will depend on the particular circumstances of the village. For Fulbourn, further development on the edge of the village, over and above that already given outline permission, must be avoided. Fulbourn has an unusual road infrastructure (six roads radiating towards the centre) and a tight village centre with inadequate parking. Until the village has assessed the impact of current approvals, once built, no further expansion should be considered. In addition, development on the edge of the village could significantly change the character of the village by altering its relationship to its Green Belt, countryside setting. The Village Design Guide SPD reinforces that assertion.
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 have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within 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. This is certainly considered to be so in the case of Papworth Everard 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 within existing framework boundaries in Minor Rural Centres, and Papworth Everard 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 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. In a Papworth context, such an approach would also ensure sufficient growth is delivered to meet the existing and future housing need and specifically affordable housing need which, as se out above, currently stands at 56 dwellings and which is likely to growth in the future. If future growth is constrained, this unmet affordable housng need will remain.
No uploaded files for public display
I think the character of villages would be ruined if the edges were used for development.
No uploaded files for public display
Much would depend on the size of village and the pattern of development of the settlement. The risk would arise of outlying plots being developed for houses for millionaires, or of ribbon development occurring. Large scale commercial developments and the associated traffic could quickly destroy rural ambience. Generally speaking, the current scheme of village frameworks and categories of settlements works well and supports communities seeking to preserve their sense of place. In the case of rural exception sites, more proposals might come forward if each community was not under a requirement to prove there was a need for affordable housing. It should surely be possible to take it as read that there was a need in the Plan area for such housing, so that Parishes would find it easier to initiate exception site projects.
No uploaded files for public display
See my comment re Question 39 on the North East Area of Cambridge (Sewage site). With villages also there needs to be a balance of retaining the uniqueness of their centre. Any new developments anywhere MUST have sustainable transport in place first (quality walking/separate cycle ways/ less focus on the private car/nearby public transport links to access further afield - without this from the outset, people will get used to have to rely on using private cars. Also, infrastructure - local leisure facilities, shops, schools, doctor's surgeries etc need to be in place before homes are occupied. There are too many stories of developers not honouring their agreed planning commitments withing an acceptable timescale.
No uploaded files for public display
Villages to the north of Cambridge will need to be abandoned to the sea. Villages to the south should prepare to accept refugees, so all the extra pressure is not on the city. The aim must be to adapt to the environmental crisis, not to "grow" for growth's sake. New housing must be balanced with biodiversity, water security, etc.
No uploaded files for public display
A somewhat flexible approach could benefit existing residents both in terms of allowing for provision of homes which better meet people’s needs as they age and allows for entry level homes for younger people wishing to remain in their existing community or live in close proximity to employment across the South Cambridgeshire villages. Where villages are very closely located to boundaries with other local authorities, consideration should be had to the nature of villages immediately across the boundaries and their level of interdependency for services, public transport and employment.
No uploaded files for public display
states “planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and in particular Policy S/10 does not allow Group Villages like Orwell to grow and as a consequence, given improvements to facilities and local services are often a result of development, the existing policy position does not allow for this. We therefore suggest, the emerging Local Plan is more flexible to development on the edge of a Village which will align with the NPPF and provide opportunities for sustainable growth alongside supporting and/or enhancing local services.
No uploaded files for public display
Sprawl of development around our larger villages can be a real problem as it reinforces two negative impacts: - incremental development does not contribute to the vibrancy of the village. Residents remote from the village centre need to use their cars and are then liable to go further afield rather than use local facilities. New developments built more than 20 minutes walk from the village centre are too remote). - where residents in the remote new developments do access village facilities, they use cars to do so. The village centres are not designed to support large scale car parking which causes congestion. It just does not work and development of new housing in Cottenham has expanded to the point that these effects are being felt and we have created new developments that are entirely car dependent. Sprawl also reduces social cohesion and creates "islands" of unconnected residents that are not integrated into the life of the community. The High Street is not a pleasant place despite the good shops and facilities located there - there is too much traffic and no space for "social interaction". The answer is a more creative approach to village centres that resets the priorities away from cars to pedestrians and cyclists, creating safe areas that would build a greater sense of community and enable more entertainment and service oriented businesses to flourish. The alternative to fringe development of our villages is greater densification of existing lower quality housing towards the centre of the village. This is a better alternative and would be particularly suitable for older people who are more dependent on easy access to the core facilities in the village.
No uploaded files for public display
In order to be able to provide a sufficient range of size and types of sites to meet housing need, as well provide for sustainable growth and enhancements to villages, the GCLP should be highly flexible in its approach to the development of jobs and homes on the edges of villages. In the instance of Linton, development on the edge of the village may not accord with the existing and out of date settlement framework, however due to its location and recent permissions and residential development, the site is a very sustainable location for growth which would both support the vitality and viability of the village itself but also provide homes in a location that has a number of existing and proposed sustainable transport options into Cambridge. Please refer to the Barton Wilmore Greater Cambridge Housing Delivery Study for supporting evidence.
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 at 13 Newton Road, Little Shelford, surrounded as it is on three sides by residential use, 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 principles of planning should be upheld where local plan policies should give clarity as to where development should be located. However, there is a need for policies within the Plan to give a somewhat flexible approach to ensure the strategy is not out of date at the time it is adopted. There are a number of studies that make up the evidence base that would enivitably change. Notably: i. Household Projections which may be impacted by the independance from the EU and a new census in March 2021 ii. Infrastructure capacity studies will require updating giving the possibility for policy to support more housing to the rural areas. iii. Delays on announcements of regional infrastructure projects. (Currently South East Milton Keynes Development - Policy SD11 in MK Adopted Plan delayed due to no confirmation of Option B OxonCambridge Expressway Route and Inspectors report on East West Rail Phase 2) Detailed policies are therefore required as to where sustainable development could be directed to boost the supply of housing if not identified as a specific allocation. The windfall policies should not be relied on to capture small development opportunities either within or adjoining the settlement boundary. Specific paragraphs that would allow development would give that flexible approach so as not to stifle growth. Policy subjects that would be approapriate include: a. Ensuring development is sustainable assessed in accordance the social, economic and environmental benefits of The Framework. b. Quality design that is appropriate for the specific location c. Homes for local people where sites above 10 dwellings should reflect the tenure requirement of a particular settlement needs. IE If not identified as an allocation such a policy would give the added benefit to the rural community. d. Heating needs to be from renewable energy and not fossil fuels e. Can be serviced reasonably utilising existing infrastructure. Regarding the sub question of is there a particular approach you would like the plan to take for your village I would respoind on the basis of Alms Hill, Bourn being the focus of these representations. By reference to Caxton this community has accepted the benefits of small developments even though there are limited community facilities (Pub/Restaurant, Village Hall) compared to Bourn. In 2018 the latest consent was for eight custom build plots (S/2294/16/OL) which although is outside the settlement boundary was deemed sustainable. Athough it is adjacent to a historic landscape the opportunity to provide a boost to the housing supply, assisting the vibrancy of the village and appropriate plots for custom builders (although also arguably suited for SME homebuilders) was correctly taken. Bourn Village has similar opportunties and the site put forward along Alms Hill as part of the SHLAA Consultation should be positively assessed. Homes in this location meet the NPPF requirement of having social, economic and environmental benefits. Dvelopment here would increase the supply of housing in the Village which is sustainable (greater than Caxton) due to the additional services of shops, doctors surgery, the primary school and other businesses that support the local area.
No uploaded files for public display
If a community is sustainable then rural exceptions sites are an excellent way of providing housing that is affordable and locally controlled – see comments at 2 above. New housing allocations within existing or expanded local frameworks just run the risk of being gamed through the viability assessments that developers are incentivised to manipulate.
No uploaded files for public display
I would support the 2018 Local Plan process in South Cambridgeshire which has already considered a flexible approach towards development in villages. This includes the consideration of the of the classification of villages into 4 groupings to reflect their relative sustainability providing for new development . I think it is important to limit the amount of new development that can take place in villages in rural areas with few services and protect the open countryside from gradual encroachment on the edges of villages in unsustainable locations . The policy classification seeks to direct new development to higher level villages in the most sustainable locations whilst also allowing some development in less sustainable villages based on thresholds. It is also important to note that some villages in South Cambridgeshire have had substantial new development well above the thresholds proposed in policy because of the implications of the absence of a 5 year housing supply and developer pressure for houses in village settings. Development in villages should be limited for sustainability reasons. Any new development proposed should be directed to villages which can support growth with the necessary infrastructure. The Local Plan should consider strengthening policies based on the SCDP Local Plan 2018 village policies so that development in villages should continue to be limited for sustainability reasons. This has become more important now that 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare has been included in the revised NPPF 2019.
No uploaded files for public display
Adding near co-located jobs and housing (with other community facilities where appropriate) on village-edge sites is much better than allowing houses alone.
No uploaded files for public display
Development on the edge of villages is frequently remote from the centre, main services and away from public transport routes. Each site therefore needs to be considered on its own merits. Generally accepted guidelines for maximum walking distances eg CHIT, 2018 'Buses in Urban Developments' and IH&T, 2000, 'Guidelines for journeys on foot', should be used to assess the sustainability of a location. Failure to do this will inevitably result in increased car use. The capacities of services in existing villages need to be taken into account, not simply the presence of a service. Village facilities audits need to be up to date. I am unable to find a village facilities audit for Sawston carried out later than 2014, since when the village has lost its remaining bank and several High St. businesses. Extension and mergers of the Granta Medical Practice have increased pressure on the local health centre .etc etc. Restrict further
No uploaded files for public display
Only if not detrimental to the environment.
No uploaded files for public display