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?

Highly flexible

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.

Restrict further

• Within a village such as Fulbourn, a Minor Rural Centre, even a 30 homes development (as presently allowed) could have a significant impact on the local character and infrastructure. Policies should make clear that the maximum permitted development within the village framework is not a target to be achieved at all costs. Any proposals must be assessed against the wishes of the community, the Village Design Guide and Neighbourhood Plan, and the potential for the development to be successfully integrated into its immediate vicinity and into the wider village network. • The need for more open green space and enhanced biodiversity must be paramount. Subsequently, a smaller development may be more appropriate to the rural village character. Enforced densification begins to remove that important interplay of buildings to open space, trees and hedges, where variability is one key that identifies a village rather than a dormitory suburb.

Restrict further

I am not in favour of developments within village boundaries as so often the facilities and infrastructure available for the homes and businesses already there are lacking. I think resources should be put towards improving these before creating large developments.

Keep the current approach

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.

Somewhat flexible

People need a sense of Place, with facilities that are local with easy access. The villages, like Cambridge City need to keep their unique identity too so growth if any should be limited. The existing Secondary School/Village Colleges used to be great community hubs with evening classes/youth clubs etc. Resource and use these again, so that people have local facilities with no need to travel afar for everything. It comes back to the same concern - Limit the Growth - where is your evidence? Many question the validity of CPIER.

Highly flexible

In this emergency we need lots of small homes.

Somewhat flexible

Flexibility should reflect the forthcoming evidence in the SHMA on the size and type of new homes required; a size threshold should not artificially reduce the number of plots at the expense of providing a small number of large properties if the evidence indicates the greatest need is for smaller ones. Village boundaries should also be reviewed to facilitate organic growth in small settlements to allow enough growth to maintain existing services and facilities in light of decreasing average household size.

Somewhat flexible

Greater densification of sites close to the village centre (or densification of existing site through redevelopment) is much more preferable to fringe development. It offers a real prospect of developing pedestrian and cycle usage for short journeys within the village core and for a village like Cottenham could significantly re-establish the sense of a village core which is being lost. Such policies also need to be associated with a more creative approach to the village centre to deprioritise cars through measures such as pedestrianisation, low speed zones, wider pavements, more cycle parking, etc.

Highly flexible

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 is used efficiently as it is a finite resource.

Nothing chosen

This has largely been answered regading Q40 where the size of developments should be highly flexible in order to meet the local housing in the most sustainable manner. The correct size of development area, the density of development and the proportion of public open space required (or the additionality of the open space needs for a specific settlement such as Bourn) can only be assessed at the time of a planning application submission or a pre-application review. This is why flexibility is paramount. Sustainable solutions require a judgment not only against the Plan policies but the infrastructure, technical and design solutions to provide the housing which does not result in substantial harm to the environment. It is also important to maximise the opportunity to ensure there is an efficient use of land which after all is a finite resource. Little is gained to provide over generous plots or specify low density schemes just to comply with a rigid policy requirement. This point is particularly relevant when considering the tenure and housing types to meet local needs for single or small family units. The result of a limiting development size policy could lead to more land having to be allocated to acheive the same output of homes.

Keep the current approach

On balance no. Small sites allow developers to dodge any sort of affordable housing contribution.

Nothing chosen

Current classification of villages policy is sufficiently flexible and allows for the consideration of new development within village framework boundaries , housing allocations in villages are focused on opportunities at the more sustainable villages.

Nothing chosen

Village character, as expressed in Village Design Statements or Neighbourhood Plans, should be the overriding concern when considering larger development within village frameworks. Too many houses are being built from developer catalogues with little respect for the local character.

Restrict further

The form and density of new developments within village envelopes should respect the character of the village and the density and pattern of existing development. Large developments which are designed simply with the object of getting as many units on the site as possible produce urban forms of development which are inappropriate in a village setting. Similarly, heights of buildings should be restricted to those characteristic of existing buildings. Restrict further

Nothing chosen

See 40

Nothing chosen

Yes – villages should be allowed to expand, particularly if it helps them become self-sufficient in local services such as healthcare, shops and community facilities.

Highly flexible

It is important that a flexible approach should be taken towards the delivery of all forms of housing within village boundaries. If a too restrictive approach is taken to infill policies then it can lead to lower density forms of housing that might not meet the needs of the local community.

Nothing chosen

Yes the existing limits upon the numbers of new housing permissible within village settlement boundaries appear arbitrary.

Nothing chosen

I don’t know but I know a lot of people get very XXXXXX XXX about building in villages. I certainly think the council could spend a bit of developers money explaining why for example making Histon bigger is better than making Wilburton bigger as it means more people are likely to cycle to work. There is not a lot of communication about planning and things feel imposed upon communities which they hate. Talk to people, listen to them, talk to them and listen. That way you can make things work and take people with you.

Nothing chosen

No comments.

Nothing chosen

9.3 There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Larger developments, above the thresholds set out in the current Local Plan, also have the potential to deliver a wider range of benefits, at a more meaningful scale, given their size. Smaller developments can place additional burdens on existing services and infrastructure whilst larger developments may be able to deliver improvements to existing communities through the delivery of new, or upgrading of existing infrastructure. 9.4 Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of villages, such as within the District, such as Melbourn, which are well connected in terms of being located on key transport corridors with access to rail, bus and cycleway links, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering the appropriate scale of development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 9.5 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport, employment and village services and facilities and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

8.3 There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Larger developments, above the thresholds set out in the current Local Plan, also have the potential to deliver a wider range of benefits, at a more meaningful scale, given their size. Smaller developments can place additional burdens on existing services and infrastructure whilst larger developments may be able to deliver improvements to existing communities through the delivery of new, or upgrading of existing infrastructure 8.4 Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of villages, such as within the District, such as Orwell, which provide access to services and facilities, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering the appropriate scale of development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 8.5 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport, employment and village services and facilities and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

8.2 There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of villages within the District, such as Longstanton, which provide access to a range of services and facilities, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering the appropriate scale of development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 8.3 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport, employment and village services and facilities and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations. 8.4 Land south of Hattons Road, Longstanton is considered to be a suitable location for residential development of up to 150 dwellings and should therefore become a residential site allocation through the extension of the development framework. The inclusion of the site would form an appropriate and logical extension the existing and proposed development in this part of Longstanton.

Nothing chosen

It is advanced on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Joscelyn) that the approach of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan should encourage further development at sustainable villages through the expansion of existing village frameworks. The application of overly prescriptive guidance of what is then acceptable at such villages is not considered to be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework's assertion to support development where it is demonstrated to be required whilst also achieving the best and most efficient use of land. It is acknowledged that development within rural settlements must respond to their context, including historical built form and rural character. However, it is maintained that many of these settlements demonstrate sustainability credentials that complies with the objectives of the Framework. Access to public transport and existing services are primary considerations that should support growth within the villages, particularly where these are recognised in the adopted settlement hierarchy at Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages. Achieving appropriate densities in line with the requirements of the Framework currently cannot be achieved by existing policies, particularly with respect to the opportunities to deliver housing on infill sites and achieve affordable homes. The nature of development at villages is also dictated by the quantum of housing to be attributed to such settlements village frameworks and therefore, a more flexible approach should be adopted by the new Plan in order to achieve varying levels of development at such locations. Summary of Comments: A more flexible approach is considered appropriate to ensure that efficient and appropriate densities are achieved in sustainable village locations.

Nothing chosen

8.4 There should be greater flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the size of development permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings, and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings but instead should encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Some sites may be capable of accommodating higher density development to enable more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of some villages such as Impington and Histon which have good connections close to key transport corridors with access to rail, bus and cycleway links, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering development in villages should therefore be adopted when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 8.5 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other respects including its access to transport and village services and is not overly constrained by other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

6.14 We consider that the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire villages should undergo a comprehensive review through the Local Plan process. Even since the last Local Plan (2008), strategic developments and policy decisions have resulted in significant changes in the context for existing settlements. 6.15 Taking Hardwick village as an example, this is categorised as a Group Village (Local Plan Policy S/10) where residential development and redevelopment is permitted up to a maximum scheme size of eight dwellings within the development framework, or exceptionally up to 15 dwellings on a single brownfield site. However, Hardwick village has seen planning permission granted for significantly larger residential schemes than these thresholds at both Grace Crescent and St Neots Road. In addition, the strategic location of the village on the route between West Cambridge/Eddington and Bourn Airfield/Cambourne means that the village benefits from good public transport links. This will be further strengthened in the forthcoming plan period by the implementation of the Cambourne-to-Cambridge public transport project, including a new Park and Ride facility at Scotland Farm (north of Hardwick); the new Cambridge-Oxford Expressway; and EastWest Rail (with a station at Cambourne). In short, Hardwick’s current categorisation as a Group Village does not reflect the settlement’s potential as a very sustainable location for further growth, and it should be identified as such in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. 6.16 The South Cambridgeshire villages should be re-categorised within a new settlement hierarchy. The new settlement hierarchy should consider not only the existing levels of services and facilities within the settlement, but also take account of the village’s potential as a location for sustainable future growth during the plan period. 6.17 Where villages are identified for strategic growth during the plan period, this should be carefully considered through the Local Plan process, including reviewing the settlement framework boundary and considering the release of land from the Green Belt where this is appropriate. Sites for development should be allocated in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, providing the certainty required for both the local community and landowners/developers. By following a plan-led approach to site release and development, the step-change in growth that is needed in Greater Cambridge will be best accommodated to the benefit of existing and new communities.

Nothing chosen

8.3 There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of some villages within the district which are well connected in terms of being located on key transport corridors with access to rail, bus and cycleway links, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 8.4 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport and village services and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

8.5 There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of some villages within the district which are well connected in terms of being located on key transport corridors with access to rail, bus and cycleway links, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. 8.6 There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport and village services and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Somewhat flexible

74. Yes, particularly within Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres where the indicative maxima number of dwellings for sites should be removed to allow the assessment of appropriate densities to take place on a site-by-site basis. This will ensure the most efficient use of land can be made, as is appropriate to the sites context, in line with the requirements of the NPPF. 75. The boundaries of village frameworks should also be re-assessed to allow sustainable sites abutting the existing village boundaries to come forward where appropriate. This will open up a large new supply of small and medium sized housing sites which can be delivered immediately as the necessary infrastructure and services to serve the new resident already exist.

Somewhat flexible

There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within village boundaries. The Local Plan currently restricts the amount of development that is permitted in Minor Rural Centres (Policy S/9) to 30 dwellings; in Group Villages (Policy S10) to eight dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to two dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to eight dwellings. These policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings and should instead encourage an appropriate density depending on the context of the site that is being considered for development. Some sites might be capable of accommodating higher density development which can enable a more sustainable distribution of growth, particularly in the case of some villages within the district which are well connected in terms of being located on key transport corridors with access to rail, bus and cycleway links, thereby making them sustainable locations for development. A more flexible approach towards considering development in villages should therefore be used when allocating development sites and in the determination of planning applications. There should also be more flexibility in terms of considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site is suitable in other terms including its access to transport and village services and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.