Question 40. How flexible should the Local Plan be towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages?
2.54 In relation to our comment on Q10, it is essential that provision for the continued growth of rural communities is made as the alternative is that they will stagnate and decline – it is not appropriate to excessively focus on driving urban based populations and any attempts to do so will simply cause rural areas to become inaccessible to those who need a rural location – which is unsustainable. 2.55 New sites need to be allocated in rural communities where they can be properly integrated into the physical and community structure and where they will be complementary to the function and sustainability of that settlement – where sustainability is more than simply the availability of a post office a pub and (an infrequent) bus.
No uploaded files for public display
2.82 We would contend that the Local Plan should take a highly flexible approach to the development of jobs and home on the edge of villages in general and Comberton in particular. As set out above Comberton is a highly sustainable location and, therefore, allocating growth here would meet a number of the aspirations of the Local Plan in general, and the four big themes in particular. The later living retirement village comprises a distinct offer in that context which will also see job creation. 2.83 The Vision Document and in particular landscape analysis sets out how the proposed development would form a natural extension to Comberton with development on 2 sides and Branch Road forming an obvious and defendable boundary, augmented by enhanced boundary planting that is multi-functional with trails, natural play and biodiversity gains
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 Foxton 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. The site at Shepreth Road, Foxton which is readily available adjoins the development framework and is also out with the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
3.34 The GCP Local Plan should contain some flexibility on the development of both employment and residential sites, evaluating each site on their merits and considering the sites sustainability, rather than a standardised approach. This is particularly the case for villages that are located outside of the Cambridge Green Belt. Many villages with considerable services, capacity and existing transport connections are often overlooked, despite their suitability.
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 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
33. Flexibility should be given to the development of jobs and homes on the edges of villages, within sustainable locations. 34. As stated within at 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. The development framework for Foxton is shown at Appendix 1 of this document. 35. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised dependant on their ‘sustainability’. Foxton is categorised as a ‘Group Village’, along with 32 other villages. However, of the 32 group villages, Foxton is clearly one of the four most sustainable and has the ability to take a suitable quantum of housing growth as part of the emerging Local Plan. It is not considered that Foxton’s current position in the existing settlement hierarchy reflects its status as a sustainable location for growth. 36. We encourage the next Local Plan to re-examine the approach currently taken to village growth and explore the re-grouping of village categories and flexibility on the scale of development with in newer more specific village groups. Table 1 below shows a list of the villages included within Policy S/10: Group Villages of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and analyses the facilities provided within these villages. 37. It is clear that the villages included within Policy S/10 vary significantly in terms of the services provided. Only three of the villages included have a railway station (Meldreth, Foxton and Shepreth). Therefore, it can be argued that these three villages are significantly more sustainable than those that do not have a station. Furthermore, a number of the villages are situated within the Green Belt. Sequentially, in accordance with national policy, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptionally circumstances (NPPF paragraph 136). This should be considered as a key factor when selecting villages for growth as part of the new Local Plan. 38. The Country Landowners Association’s (CLA’s) report Sustainable Villages – Making Communities fit for the Future, which draws upon the findings of the Taylor Review (2008) challenges the assumptions that a lack of services means that these villages are unsuitable for new development ‘due to the negative impact this process has on house price affordability, social cohesion and economic performance. This process effectively fossilises these villages instead of seeking to address the reasons behind why services are being lost, creating a cycle of decline’. 39. Foxton is particularly well placed to accommodate some additional growth as it, not only benefits from a railway station and line, with regular services to Cambridge and London King’s Cross, but also has a number of services, including a public house, church, primary school, post office and village store, sports pavilion and village hall. 40. The Local Plan should be more flexible in particular at focussing development at the edge of the villages contained within Policy S/10 that rank higher in terms of sustainability. It would be our recommendation that a new village group is provided within the Local Plan than encompasses the less sustainable Minor Rural Centres and more sustainable Group Villages and allows for development of a larger scale. Villages such as Foxton and Meldreth, highlighted green within the above table would be recommended for inclusion within such a village group due their location outside the Green Belt and provision of a railway station, along with some services, ranking them higher in terms of sustainability. 41. Furthermore, the Local Plan should allow for more flexibility in allowing the development of sites that directly abut the development boundary of a village that are within areas of the countryside beyond the Green Belt. 42. Summary: The Local Plan should be highly flexible towards development of jobs/homes on the edge of villages and be able to respond to changing circumstances.
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 (Cottenham) to the north east of 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 to the north east of 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
18. Flexibility should be given to the development of jobs and homes on the edges of villages, within sustainable locations. 19. As stated within the Issues and Options document at paragraph 5.2.5, the currently adopted 2018 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets a development framework for each village, outside which development is restricted. 20. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised according to their ‘sustainability’. Meldreth is categorised as a ‘Group Village’, along with 32 other villages. However, of the 32 group villages, Meldreth is clearly one of the four most sustainable and therefore has the ability to take a suitable quantum of housing growth as part of the emerging Local Plan. It is not considered that Meldreth’s current position in the existing settlement hierarchy reflects its potential to be a sustainable location for growth. 21. Our client encourages the next Local Plan to re-examine the approach currently taken to village growth and explore the re-grouping of village categories and flexibility on the scale of development within newer more specific village groups. Table 1 below shows a list of the villages included within Policy S/10: Group Villages of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and analyses the facilities provided within these villages. 22. It is clear that the villages included within Policy S/10 vary significantly in terms of the services provided. Only three of the villages included have a railway station (Meldreth, Foxton and Shepreth). Therefore, it can be argued that these three villages are significantly more sustainable than those that do not have a station. Of these, Meldreth is the one of the three situated most closely to Melbourn, which is designated as a Minor Rural Centre. There is no school bus from Meldreth to Melbourn Village College because the College is walking distance for Meldreth students. Both Foxton and Shepreth are not within walking distance to a Secondary School. 23. Furthermore, a number of group villages are situated within the Green Belt. Sequentially, in accordance with national policy, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances (NPPF paragraph 136). This should be considered as a key factor when selecting villages for growth as part of the new Local Plan. 24. Meldreth, not only benefits from a train line, with a fast and regular service to Cambridge and Kings Cross, but it is also situated outside of the Green Belt. It also has a number of services, including a public house, primary school, post office and village store, farm shop, village hall and community room, take-away, hairdressers, recreation ground, tennis courts and bowls green. Table 1: Services and Facilities within Group Villages at Policy S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. 25. The Local Plan should be more flexible in particular at focusing development at the edge of the villages contained within Policy S/10 that rank higher in terms of sustainability. It would be our recommendation that a new village group is provided within the Local Plan than encompasses the less sustainable Minor Rural Centres and more sustainable Group Villages and allows for a higher level of development. Villages such as Meldreth, highlighted green within the above table would be recommended for inclusion within such a village group due its location outside the Green Belt and its location being adjacent to Melbourn, its provision of a train station and the availability of a good level of services. These all contribute to Meldreth meriting a higher score in terms of sustainability. 26. Furthermore, the Local Plan should allow for more flexibility in allowing the development of sites that directly abut the development boundary of a village that are within areas of the countryside beyond the Green Belt. 27. The new Local Plan should be more flexible in its approach towards redundant agricultural sites on the edges of towns and villages and should be viewed with the same merits as previously developed land both outside and within the settlement boundary. The sites put forward by our client include ‘Land North of Fenny Lane Farm’ which comprises a redundant agricultural yard with redundant agricultural buildings. The buildings are no longer suitable for modern agricultural practices. It is important to note that redevelopment of the farmyard will not reduce the number of people employed in our client’s farming operation. The site is very well visually enclosed by the existing redundant buildings and development could be implemented without harming the countryside. 28. The New Local Plan should also be more flexible in the housing mix allowed to be allocated beyond the village framework. Current limits on the development of small infill sites in Group villages (fewer than ten dwellings) means that on sites currently allowed, no affordable housing needs to be included as part of the application. Affordable housing delivery is critical to meeting the overall housing demands in South Cambridgeshire. A relaxation of the village framework and of the size of development permitted would lead to policy compliant affordable housing and therefore a healthier housing mix in a sustainable location.
No uploaded files for public display
8.1 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is recognised, however, there should be a degree of policy flexibility in terms of allowing appropriate development outside of the settlement boundaries of villages. In particular, where development meets a particular local business or community need (NPPF paragraph 84). Sustainable development in rural areas is also supported by national policy (NPPF paragraph 78), 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 pertinent to villages in the District which provide services, facilities and public transport options to encourage more sustainable behaviours.
No uploaded files for public display
28. As stated within at 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. 29. In addition, villages within the Local Plan 2018 have been categorised dependant on their ‘sustainability’. Orwell is currently categorised as a ‘Group Village’. These are villages that are considered by the Plan to be generally less sustainable where development will be limited to sites of 8 to 15 dwellings. 30. The CLA’s report: Sustainable Villages – Making Rural Communities fit for the Future is critical of traditional approaches to what constitutes ‘sustainability’ and states that ‘Sustainability assessments measure villages against a range of services and amenities more akin to how previous generations lived and used services’ and argues that ‘Local authorities should factor in how advances in technology have helped shape modern life and consider how emerging technology will change rural England’. It concludes that many villages ‘are not allocated housing and have very limited development options to improve their sustainability leaving them in a cycle of decline’. 31. In light of the above it is recommended that the Local Plan should be more flexible in particular at focussing development at the edge of the villages contained within Policy S/10 that rank higher in terms of sustainability. It would be our recommendation that a new village group is provided within the Local Plan than encompasses the less sustainable Minor Rural Centres and more sustainable Group Villages and allows for development of up to 30 dwellings. 32. Furthermore, the Local Plan should allow for more flexibility in allowing the development of sites that directly abut the development framework of a village that is not within the Green Belt (or the edge of a village abutting the Green Belt). Sites such as the one put forward by my client, Endurance Estates as part of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan ‘Call for Sites’ exercise in March 2019. 33. Summary: The Local Plan should be highly flexible towards development of jobs/homes on the edge of villages and be able to respond to changing circumstances.
No uploaded files for public display
Highly Flexible- Please see supporting cover letter for justification
No uploaded files for public display
9.4.1 Gladman recommend that the new Local Plan should take a flexible approach to growth within and on the edge of villages. The Local Plan should avoid blanket protection policies as they may act to unnecessarily stifle sustainable growth opportunities on the edge of settlements. This is at odds with national policy, seeking to boost significantly the supply of housing and applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development. 9.4.2 Gladman recommend that the Council could incorporate a criteria based policy, such an approach would allow the plan to protect itself against unsustainable development at the same time as being open and flexible to additional development opportunities to come forward to meet identified needs.
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
2.27 New development in rural areas is 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. The new Local Plan should support older people housing (Use Class C2) within and on the edge of villages. This will enable older people to stay within their communities. 2.28 The new Local Plan should not restrict development using tightly drawn settlement boundaries which do not identify suitable areas for growth. It should also not restrict the quantum of development, but instead allow for design-led proposals, which take account of its individual site specifics, to come forward and be assessed against the three strands of sustainable development. 2.29 The Councils should make as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites for housing available within and on the edge of villages.
No uploaded files for public display
Southern and Regional Developments (Willingham) consider 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 controlled by Southern and Regional Developments (Willingham) at Priest Lane, 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. Currently, given the derelict nature of the site it detrimentally harms the visual amenity of this edge of village location. The land houses a number of horticultural structures which do not positively contribute to the local character and affect the open setting of the countryside. Development of the site will materially enhance the aesthetic of the area and provide an appropriate transitional character between the settlement edge in the west, to the Fen-edge landscape of the countryside to the east. 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 Priest Lane, 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 Local Plan must be Highly Flexible in its consideration of development on the edge of villages. As highlighted in our response to question 47, villages are often located in highly sustainable locations, and provide significant opportunities at appropriate scales, to meet objectively assessed housing and employment needs. This brings significant benefits to the future vitality of villages, especially those such as Coton which have seen very limited growth in recent years. A failure to consider the villages as appropriate locations for growth could lead to a stagnation of these villages, and will locate development in less sustainable locations.
No uploaded files for public display
2.35 There is a regional and national importance associated with the sustainable growth and development of Greater Cambridge’s economy and housing market, both to assist in meeting its own development needs over the plan period, but also its role as an integral part of key cross-boundary structures and initiatives such as the Oxford-Cambridge Arc; the London-Stanstead-Cambridge corridor; and the Cambridge-Norwich corridor. 2.36 With Greater Cambridgeshire playing a major role in delivering the homes needed to meet the ambitious target of building 1 million homes by 2050 between Oxford and Cambridge, and the critical mass and scale of infrastructure to be delivered in tandem, a large proportion of housing growth will be infrastructure led. 2.37 Whilst it is accepted that this scale of delivery is a longer term overarching strategy which will span over two plan periods (assuming the new greater Cambridgeshire Local Plan carries forward its suggested plan period up to 2040), over-reliance on larger scale development to meet the assessed need can lead to shortfalls of delivery in the short term. There is then a risk too much reliance is placed on the latter stages of the housing trajectory towards the later years of the plan period with few too homes being built in the short term. 2.38 It is therefore important to ensure there is sufficient flexibility within the spatial strategy to deliver sufficient housing numbers across all years of the plan period, and to ensure the sustainable growth of existing settlements where there is appropriate capacity. 2.39 Directing some growth towards the edge of sustainable villages is supported, and assists in balancing proportionate growth across Greater Cambridgeshire. The direction of a proportionate level of growth to smaller settlements is necessary to ensure the vitality of such communities is supported, and as such is an essential ingredient of a sustainable strategy. Villages such as Great Chishill are well placed to accommodate additional growth, capable of delivering small to medium (and larger) scale sites that can be built out contributing to more responsive delivery rates within the early years of the plan period. 2.40 It is key a balance is achieved between planning for larger scale, strategic infrastructure led growth of appropriate critical mass to meet the development needs of Greater Cambridgeshire over the plan period, with more immediate, short term growth on the edge of thriving rural villages helping to sustain their vitality.
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 settlements. It is maintained that the site controlled by Southern and Regional Developments (Waterbeach) at Bannold Road, Waterbeach represents a deliverable and appropriate example of an edge of village site that could be sensitively developed to contribute towards the strategic requirements of the new Local Plan. It demonstrates the criteria needed to be a suitable location for growth, benefitting from access to public transport links and a coherent relationship with the existing settlement edge. Furthermore, existing features such as the Fen Mainline that forms the eastern boundary of the site provides a defensible boundary that is able to reinforce the settlement, and Green Belt's, new edge. Characteristics such as these are significant considerations which contribute towards the appropriateness of such edge of settlement sites. Where features exist to contain developments at the fringes of villages, these can ensure that the perceived outward sprawl of the settlements can be enclosed by utilising these features. This conserves the landscape character and provides a sensitive approach to development which is particularly important where release of Green Belt is involved in such proposals. 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 Bannold Road, Waterbeach represent such opportunities and as such, 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
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 Minor Rural Centres, and Willingham 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
• The dispersal of both employment and housing across the villages of South Cambridgeshire should be avoided, especially as such village developments are likely to become dormitories for Cambridge and reliant on car use. Whilst locally such impacts may be modest, the cumulative impacts, for example on traffic, could be significant. • Development should not be permitted which would cause the merging of two villages, there should remain an intentional and deliberate separation between them that is sufficient to retain their individual characters.
No uploaded files for public display
The development framework should be rigidly maintained in order to prevent the creep of village development into the countryside. Where appropriate the development framework should be adjusted rather than making it flexible.
No uploaded files for public display
Steeple Morden is not a sustainable location for development. It has few facilities for example no doctor’s surgery, secondary school and very limited bus service. Its development framework has been tightly drawn around the village to protect the wider countryside from encroachment. The only reason to support development outside the framework would be for social housing for local people.
No uploaded files for public display
The Local Plan should allow businesses and homes been developed at the edge of the village if other matters are considered, for example closeness of facilities including shops, schools, services. Most shops are towards the centre of the village hence homes on the edge are likely to be too far away to walk to. Also, new bus stops will need to be considered so these new developments on the edge can be integrated with the remainder of the village. A safe route must also be put in place for safe access to other areas of the village. As some parts of this relate to question 39, please also consider those responses.
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
In considering the appropriateness of future locations for growth consideration should be given to the transportation infrastructure including active and sustainable modes. It is also recommended that analysis be undertaken to determine the quantum of growth that may be accommodated within existing villages to ensure that social and community infrastructure is viable for the medium and longer term. An example is reviewing Early Years and Child Care and education capacity to determine whether further growth may increase the economics of scale and secure the future viability of the social and community infrastructure.
No uploaded files for public display
1.47 Our clients believe that the Councils should be highly flexible towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. For years development frameworks have constrained development in sustainable locations preventing applications being permitted even where there would not be a significant encroachment into the countryside. 1.48 Other Local Planning Authorities are proposing policies that are more flexible when it comes to considering developments on the edges of settlements. As part of the 2019 review of its Local Plan West Norfolk and Kings Lynn Borough Council has included the following Policy LP26 (Residential Development Adjacent to Existing Settlements). This policy allows greater flexibility to the development of land on the edges of settlements, outside development boundaries, where the criteria of the policy are met. It also attaches weight to the use of such land to accommodate self-build dwellings. 1.49 The Greater Cambridge Local plan should consider a similarly worded policy that identifies the criteria for small-scale developments on the edges of settlements, outside development frameworks, that infill gaps or are sensitive to the locality. By attaching weight to the provision of plots for self-build such a policy could boost the supply of housing and address the needs of people on the Councils’ self-build registers.
No uploaded files for public display
1.45 Our client believes that the Councils should be highly flexible towards development of both jobs and homes on the edge of villages. For years development frameworks have constrained development in sustainable locations preventing applications being permitted even where there would not be a significant encroachment into the countryside. 1.46 Other Local Planning Authorities are proposing policies that are more flexible when it comes to considering developments on the edges of settlements. As part of the 2019 review of its Local Plan West Norfolk and Kings Lynn Borough Council has included the following Policy LP26 (Residential Development Adjacent to Existing Settlements). This policy allows greater flexibility to the development of land on the edges of settlements, outside development boundaries, where the criteria of the policy are met. It also attaches weight to the use of such land to accommodate self-build dwellings. 1.47 The Greater Cambridge Local plan should consider a similarly worded policy that identifies the criteria for small-scale developments on the edges of settlements, outside development frameworks, that infill gaps or are sensitive to the locality. By attaching weight to the provision of plots for self-build such a policy could boost the supply of housing and address the needs of people on the Councils’ self-build registers.
No uploaded files for public display
The Local Plan should take a highly flexible approach to the development of jobs and homes on the edge of villages in general and Meldreth in particular. Meldreth is a sustainable location and allocating growth here would meet a number of aspirations of the Local Plan in general, and the four big themes in particular. The settlement of Meldreth is a highly sustainable location and provides a good range of local services and facilities and includes a post office, convenience store, public house, village hall, veterinary surgery Aurora Meldreth Manor School and Orchard Manor, and a church. Meldreth is also served by bus route 127 (Guilden Morden – Royston). There is also a Railway Station in Meldreth which is operated by Great Northern and Thameslink and provides services to London Kings Cross and Cambridge. From Kings Cross, trains regularly depart to destinations such as Peterborough, Leeds, Durham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. The submitted indicative master plan illustrates how development at Meldreth would, in effect, infill an existing gap and provide for a spacious layout that would reflect the existing pattern of development in this location.
No uploaded files for public display
6.2 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 Impington – are located on strategic transport corridors with excellent transport links, and close proximity to key employment nodes such as the Science & Business Park. Small scale knowledge-intensive employment would be entirely appropriate in locations such as Impington to accommodate flexible working practices. 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. 6.3 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. 6.4 As highlighted in our response to question 47, villages are often located in highly sustainable locations, and provide significant opportunities at appropriate scales, to meet objectively assessed housing and employment needs. This brings significant benefits to the future vitality of villages, especially those such as Impington which have seen very limited growth in recent years. A failure to consider the villages as appropriate locations for growth could lead to a stagnation of these villages and will locate development in less sustainable locations.
No uploaded files for public display
NPPF paragraph 78 which states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. In the context of the requirement for the delivery of significant number of homes over the plan period, the spatial distribution of housing and employment is a serious challenge for the Plan. In previous Plans the Council (SCDC) has relied upon a strategy for villages involving tightly drawn village boundaries. This has had the effect of stifling sustainable development that would otherwise be acceptable in terms of development management policies, as evidenced by the granting of planning permission at local and appeal level during the period when the Council was unable to deminstrate a 5-year supply of housing land, thereby invoking the tilted balance. Those planning permissions were for scheme sizes greater than the numbers in the relevant policies, e.g. 8 units for group villages and have not resulted in overall harm to those villages. The Plan needs to balance the wider spatial strategy in light of the need for significant housing provision. This should acknowledge that windfall sites make a valuable contribution to housing supply and are not necessarily always located within the defined boundaries of villages. Cramming villages with increasing densities of development threatens their very rural nature, whereas development on the edges of villages can retain their character. Such developments are able to be delivered more quickly than major sites and brownfield sites. Additionally, this is acknowledged by paragraph 68.a) of the NPPF, which also requires that 10% of the housing requirement should be accommodated on sites less than 1ha in area. Some such sites are too small to be considered for allocation since they can accommodate fewer than the minimum 5 homes, meaning that opportunities for small windfall developments are extremely limited. The Plan should inlcude a criteria based policy that positively acknowledges that sites of varying sizes (not just 5 or fewer) on the edges of settlements will inevitably come forward and be sustainable and acceptable, whilst not undermining the wider spatial strategy. A criteria-based policy would ensure compliance with NPPF paragraph 78. Land at Park Street, Dry Drayton is one such location on the edge of a village, promoted by our clients for 30 dwellings. The Site Promotion Document submitted at the Call for Sites stage demonstrates that development on the edge of the village can be accommodated well in terms of the surrounding landscape, the wider spatial strategy and in contributing to the vitality of the village community by supporting the school population, bus service, facilities etc.
No uploaded files for public display