Question 40. How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages?
I think there probably needs to be a degree of flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
The plan should remain flexible in its approach towards housing development on the edge of villages by allocating edge of village sites such as land north east of Woodside, Longstanton and also consider introducing an edge of village policy to allow small edge of village windfall sites to come forward. This would also assist the Council in meeting the NPPF policy requirement of 10% of development to be delivered on small sites under 1 hectare. Edge of village sites represent a sustainable natural extension to these villages; they can be suitably sized to ensure that the growth is proportionate to the size of the village. Some development on the edge of villages helps to maintain the critical mass required to support local services and businesses and provides housing opportunities for local people.
No uploaded files for public display
It is important that a flexible approach be taken to the provision of schemes on the edge of villages that deliver 100% affordable housing.
No uploaded files for public display
Paragraph 91 of the NPPF seeks to deliver healthy, inclusive and safe places, and identifies a number of approaches to support healthy lifestyles. It promotes social interaction through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres, street layouts that include pedestrian and cycle connections, and active street frontages for example. It enables and supports healthy lifestyles, by providing green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food, allotments, and layouts that encourage walking and cycling for example. NHS England Healthy Towns Initiatives identified ten principles to deliver healthy places, which relate to the provision of health services, meeting local and community health needs, and development design matters. In terms of design matters it is suggested that compact neighbourhoods, active travel, healthy eating opportunities, play and leisure facilities would contribute towards the delivery of healthy places. It is considered that the promoted development at land off Leaden Hill in Orwell would be consistent with guidance and initiatives to support healthy lifestyles. The promoted development is accessible to the services and facilities within Orwell by walking and cycling. There are outdoor play and recreation facilities at Town Green Road, which is within walking distance of the site.
No uploaded files for public display
As stated, many villages both within and adjoining the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable in their own right, with existing local services and public transport facilities. Therefore the new Local Plan should look to allocate appropriate levels of employment and housing to the edges of sustainable villages, to help reduce the scale of any further Green Belt release required. This includes the sustainable villages in adjoining districts, such Great Chesterford, where the land in question falls within South Cambridgeshire and high quality public transport options are available.
No uploaded files for public display
Very flexible in order to provide for a planned strategy for new housing and in order to ensure that villages are sustainable.
No uploaded files for public display
Jobs yes much more flexible as there is a tendency to always lose business from villages as shops and business premises are turned into housing. Homes is tricky I actually think you need a full consultation would the community prefer a brand new community adjacent to them or to expand the current community? Work out what’s good and bad about that? Or would they prefer urban sprawl – what’s good or bad about that. Certainly urban sprawl of a village should not come at the cost of existing residents losing access to school places or healthcare. If we are going to let villages get bigger public transport must match that with bus routes changing.
No uploaded files for public display
For the reasons described in M&M’s response to question 47, the Local Plan should remain flexible and enable opportunities for development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages.
No uploaded files for public display
9.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in policy in terms of allowing 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 paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. A degree of flexibility is even more pertinent to the largest, most sustainable villages in the District, such as Rural and Minor Rural Centres, which provide the facilities and services to encourage more sustainable behaviours. 9.2 Villages have a role to play in providing for some of the Local Plan development requirements, so that new residents can benefit from existing services and facilities, but also so those new residents can support those services and facilities to better ensure their retention and enhancement to the benefit of all.
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that housing and jobs on the edge of villages should be supported as this will provide a flexible strategy for the Local Plan and ensure a range of housing and jobs are provided in accordance with the themes of the Local Plan as set out in Section 4 of the consultation document. Our response to question 42 details this further.
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that the Local Plan should be flexible towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. It is considered that the Local Planning Authority should be more flexible to the scale of development within the village framework and should allow a more flexible approach to development on the edge of villages. The adopted settlement hierarchy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan recognises that there are sustainable villages within the District that can appropriately accommodate levels of growth that can both contribute towards meeting the strategic needs of the Plan area. Accordingly, a flexible approach to development should be applied to the most sustainable settlement. The site promoted at Fen End, Willingham represents a deliverable and appropriate example of an edge of village site that can be sensitively developed to contribute towards the strategic requirements of the new Local Plan. It demonstrates the criteria needed to be a suitable and preferable location for growth, benefitting from walking distance to local services within the village and is unconstrained by local or national designations. The site is significantly influenced by existing built form to the west and to the south, the curtilages of which comprise the resepective boundaries of the site. Given the extent of this built form, the devevelopment of the site will not result in inappropriate extension of the village into the countryside. Rather it will demonstrate a coherent and logical extension to Willingham in line with the linear development that is located along Earith Road, which extends the built-up area of the village northwards. As such, development of the site will reflect this establised built pattern of Willingham and provide a suitable expansion to the village. A spatial strategy which considers development at the edge of villages should ensure that it maximises sustainable development opportunities. It is considered that sites such as at Fen End, Willingham represent such opportunities and omission of them will result in a spatial strategy which has not appropriately explored all deliverable or realistic directions of growth to assist in meeting the demanding housing needs for Greater Cambridge. Summary of Comments - Development at the edges of villages is supported, as it is a sustainable approach which can contribute towards meeting the OAN of the Plan area.
No uploaded files for public display
8.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in policy in terms of allowing 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 paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. A degree of flexibility is even more pertinent to villages in the District, which provide access to the facilities and services to encourage more sustainable behaviours.
No uploaded files for public display
It is considered that the Local Plan should be flexible towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. It is considered that the Local Planning Authority should be more flexible to the scale of development within the village framework and should allow a more flexible approach to development on the edge of villages. The adopted settlement hierarchy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan recognises that there are sustainable villages within the District that can appropriately accommodate levels of growth that can both contribute towards meeting the strategic needs of the Plan area and a flexible approach to development should be applied to the most sustainable settlements. The site controlled by Southern and Regional Developments (Joscelyn) at Kingfisher Way, Cottenham represents a deliverable and appropriate example of an edge of village site that can be sensitively developed to contribute towards the strategic requirements of the new Local Plan. Cottenham is a higher order settlement within the settlement hierarchy that indicates that the village benefits from an extensive and established range of services and amenities. The site is not designated as Green Belt and offers a good opportunity to provide additional housing in a sustainable location. It is considered that an extensive landscape strategy can be adopted for the site which will contribute to the softening of the development edge. A spatial strategy which considers development at the edge of villages should ensure that it maximises sustainable development opportunities. It is considered that site at Kingfisher Way, Cottenham represents such an opportunity. Summary of Comments: Development at the edges of villages is supported, as it is a sustainable approach which can contribute towards meeting the OAN of the Plan area.
No uploaded files for public display
8.3 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing 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
Endurance consider that Melbourn which is ones of the larger villages in the plan area capable of delivering additional growth around its edges. It benefits by having a primary transport route which does not pass through the village. Melbourn is therefore well suited to deliver employment land, roadside services and the care/retirement village which we have identified through these representations. Employment uses can be delivered on the identified land to the west of the A10 with the care village delivered on land adjoining the existing settlement to the east of the A10. Endurance Estates has previously delivered housing growth in the village and there is scope to deliver more specialist residential growth during the plan period given the sustainable credentials of the village and to ensure there is a balance between housing and employment growth as around 22% of the population of the village are over the age of 60 and a retirement village would allow people living in the settlement to stay closer to where they currently live and free up existing family housing to the market.
No uploaded files for public display
8.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in policy in terms of allowing 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 paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. A degree of flexibility is even more pertinent to the largest, most sustainable villages in the District, such as Rural and Minor Rural Centres, which provide the facilities and services to encourage more sustainable behaviours.
No uploaded files for public display
.10 Highly flexible (in the approach to reviewing village boundaries) . 6.11 The emerging Local Plan will need to strike a careful balance when addressing the issue of development on the edge of existing villages. Some of the villages surrounding Cambridge – such as Hardwick – are located on strategic growth corridors with excellent transport links. These villages provide opportunities for sustainable development and they should be identified as such within the Local Plan. The boundaries of these villages should be reviewed and where there are sites that will appropriately support sustainable village extensions then these should be allocated for development within the plan period. 6.12 In terms of Local Plan policy, the existing approach of tightly-drawn ‘village frameworks’ (boundaries) has in practice not been adhered to through development decisions. The Council should review this policy approach.
No uploaded files for public display
8.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in policy in terms of allowing 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 paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. A degree of flexibility is even more pertinent to the largest, most sustainable villages in the District, such as Rural and Minor Rural Centres, which provide the facilities and services to encourage more sustainable behaviours. Impington and Histon are locations where new small scale development can be supported sustainably.
No uploaded files for public display
2.36 Many villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable in their own right, with local services and public transport facilities. Furthermore, a large number of villages in the area are in close proximity to the outer fringe of Cambridge. Therefore several villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable for the development of both jobs and homes. The new Local Plan should look to allocate appropriate levels of employment and housing to the edge of these villages. 2.37 As has been demonstrated throughout this representation, Milton is such a village that is sustainable in its own right. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan lists Milton as a Minor Rural Centre, which is the second highest type of settlement in the hierarchy. Minor Rural Centres are considered to have a higher number of services than most settlements in the District, and accordingly there is scope for larger scale development in these settlements. Milton is in close proximity to Cambridge, and in particular is very near to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park, both major employment hubs. Milton is therefore a village that should be taking a significant amount of employment and housing growth in order to meet the needs of the area.
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 30 dwellings within existing framework boundaries in Minor Rural Centres, Swavesey is an example where there are few opportunities within the settlement 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 at Swavesey, 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
8.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing 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. 8.2 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
2.31 As set out, many villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable in their own right, with local services and public transport facilities. Furthermore, a large number of villages in the area are in close proximity to the outer fringe of Cambridge. As such, several villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable for the development of both jobs and homes. Therefore the new Local Plan should look to allocate for appropriate levels of employment and housing to the edge of villages. 2.32 As has been demonstrated throughout this representation, Teversham is a sustainable settlement in very close proximity to Cambridge. The village benefits from a number of services and facilities, including a primary school, social club, mobile library service, a restaurant, a petrol station and a bus service. Teversham is therefore a village that should be taking a proportionate amount of housing growth in order to meet the needs of the area.
No uploaded files for public display
8.3 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing 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. A degree of flexibility is even more pertinent to the largest, most sustainable villages in the District, such as Rural and Minor Rural Centres, which provide the facilities and services to encourage more sustainable behaviours.
No uploaded files for public display
The Plan should be highly flexible in its approach to allowing new housing development on the edge of villages. As previously stated, development on Green Belt edge of village sites can make an important contribution towards meeting the Greater Cambridge area’s development needs over the plan period. The villages of Sawston and Great Shelford with Stapleford are considered to be entirely logical and sustainable locations for development that can meet the day to day needs of their residents. Both villages contain a good range of existing services and benefit from very good existing and proposed public transport connections to Cambridge. The release of land from the Green Belt and allocation of new homes at these villages will ensure that existing services are able to continue to thrive. Moreover, without land being released from the Green Belt, the restrictive nature of current national policy for Green Belt means that there can be no flexibility for growth until a future Local Plan review. As such the land should be allocated now, wherein a positive planned approach to delivery can occur, including where appropriate the provision of new community facilities and services. The delivery of such sites will support the Council in ensuring its housing need is met on sustainable sites, with good access to sustainable modes of travel.
No uploaded files for public display
8.4 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing 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
Q40: How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages? Flexibility should be given to the development of jobs and homes on the edges of villages, within sustainable locations. As stated at paragraph 5.2.5 of the Issues and Options document, the currently adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets a development framework for each village, outside which development is heavily restricted. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised dependant on their ‘sustainability’. Histon and Impington are categorised as a ‘Rural Centre’ (Policy S/8) which are considered the most sustainable villages in the district with good access to a secondary school, employment and various services and facilities in addition to good transport services. Whilst Girton, is identified as a Minor Rural Centre (Policy S/9), the next level down from Rural Centre’s within the hierarchy and are considered to have ‘a lower level of services, facilities, and employment than Rural Centres, but a greater level than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire’. Both settlements are therefore sustainable locations for growth with good public transport links to Cambridge. The new Local Plan should be more flexible at focussing development at the edge of the village boundaries, particularly those that rank higher in terms of sustainability such as the Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres at policies S/8 and S/9 of the current Local Plan. Proposals such as those at our client’s sites, Land west of South Road, Impington and Land east of Redgate Road Girton should be supported. The additional benefits of the proposed improvements to sustainable transport linkages through the introduction of a new cycle/footway into Cambridge would significantly improve the sustainability of the sites. As such these proposals should be ranked highly in terms of sustainability, creating great places and being mindful to climate change. Summary of Comments: The new Plan should be highly flexible towards development of jobs/homes on the edge of villages to be able support the significant development needs.
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
69. Significant flexibility should be given towards the development of housing and jobs on the edge of villages, particularly for Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres as identified in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. 70. Edge of village locations provide new development with access to established communities as well as services and other infrastructure which make them an ideal location for additional jobs and homes. 71. For example, Linton is identified as a Minor Rural Centre which are villages with a greater level of services, facilities and employment than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire, and often perform a role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland. Providing additional homes in this location would deliver social and economic benefits which weigh heavily on presumption in favour of sustainable development, 72. Given this, the settlement boundaries for existing Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres should be reconsidered and reassessed particularly where edge of village sites are promoted for sustainable development. 73. Additionally, the NPPF encourages planning policies to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. As noted previously, edge of village sites tend to be smaller and within single ownership with less constraints than larger strategic allocations. This means they are a reliable and robust source for housing delivery and where such sites are immediately available, significant flexibility should be given to allow sustainable development to be delivered quickly.
No uploaded files for public display
The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however there should be a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing 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
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