Question 41. Do you think the Local Plan should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries (frameworks), allowing more homes on sites that become available?
More homes should be allowed as long as homes built are of a good size (probably beyond current minimums) and development is kept in character with the area. I imagine this would end up with the same end result anyway.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.
No uploaded files for public display
The current approach works well and recognises that the size of developments should be appropriate to the size of the village and its facilities.
No uploaded files for public display
The problem with the adopted Local Plan is that it contains unduly restrictive policies based on an poorly conceived hierarchy. It should be made more flexible to meet future housing needs.
No uploaded files for public display
No, the current 'S/11 Infill Villages' policy is appropriate for our village. The exception site mechanism has allowed us to meet our local housing need. Denser developments in an infill village would increase carbon emissions and be detrimental to the character of the village.
No uploaded files for public display
Same as Q40: the end result must be a sustainable self-contained community with a sensible balance of all of accommodation, amenity, education, and employment.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
The size of developments should be a factor of the site’s physical constraints and not an arbitrary figure set by policy. It is essential that land within settlement boundaries and on the edge of settlements is use efficiently as it is a finite resource.
No uploaded files for public display
The size of developments should be a factor of the site’s physical constraints and not an arbitrary figure set by policy. It is essential that land within settlement boundaries if use efficiently as it is a finite resource.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too
No uploaded files for public display
The College’s general response is “Somewhat flexible” depending upon the circumstances of the individual village. However, as set to at Q 40, the College considers there is a unique strategic development opportunity to significantly expand the village at Duxford. Duxford is currently designated a “grouped village” in the Local Plan 2018 (Policy S/10) and thus considered suitable only for limited infill development. Accordingly, to realise this strategic opportunity will require a realignment of Duxford’s place in the settlement hierarchy, recognising its potential for major sustainable mixed-use growth. The historic village given its heritage, conservation status and collection of listed buildings would remain untouched, with new development fronting later 1970/1980 developments.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is currently possible to circumvent the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a new village housing policy. Current policy is somewhat crude in focusing on unit numbers rather than an amount of development: two starter homes are very different from two large detached dwellings
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
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, as would policies protecting existing employment sites. 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 as there are few outstanding development opportunities within the boundary of many of South Cambridgeshire’s villages. 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
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are by far the most needed in this plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy. The same factors apply to new employment development too.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Current policy makes little sense (e.g. Infill Villages) in the case of large back gardens and reasonable sized brownfield sites or redevelopment of an existing house for example. It takes no account of site-specific circumstances and it is possible to overcome the policy constraint by phasing development proposals. It acts to discourage provision of smaller dwellings which are the most needed in the Plan area. It is far more sensible to approach matters on a site-specific basis with some overarching criteria set out in a policy.
No uploaded files for public display
In addition to the points made in response to Q.40, we are concerned that the current limitations on the size of new developments allowed within village boundaries are too restrictive, are arbitrary and no longer appropriate. In particular, the Joint Local Plan should recognize the changed context for sustainable development based on strategic growth corridors and planned investment in improved public transport. Policies should be criteria based to ensure proposals, respond to any local strategic objectives, local context and site circumstances and ensure that they represent sustainable development as required by the NPPF.
No uploaded files for public display
I moved to a village because I wanted to live in a village. Now my village is morphing into the urban sprawl of Cambourne. I feel very strongly that if people have chosen to live in a village, it should be protected as a village and development should be limited so that it retains that characteristic.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Again, much would depend on the size of village and the pattern of development of the settlement. The limits on the number of houses that can be built on a site are appropriate, particularly for the smaller (infill only) villages. Much of the built area of those villages may also be in the conservation area, and it is important that those communities have sufficient protection from the Local Plan to safeguard their individual characters. It’s very important not to have dense developments in a small community where such features are not the norm.
No uploaded files for public display
There are already more that enough houses built within existing communities in and around Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Residents choose to live in a village rather than a city location because they like to identify with the character of the village. That character can more easily be destroyed if large developments are allowed.
No uploaded files for public display