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?

Nothing chosen

2.56 As long as there is suitable provision of infrastructure in the settlement a site’s location in relation to present village settlement boundaries should not restrict the amount of housing that is brought forward. Each site should be treated on an individual basis. 2.57 Equally it is our view that it is not necessary to maximise the number of dwellings achieved on any given land allocation in the rural area – other considerations around good design, sustainable building form and social integration should also be prevailing factors.

Nothing chosen

3.35 Yes, it is important that planning applications and proposals are considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraphs 10 & 11 of the NPPF. Linton is a sustainable location. It is considered that villages, such as Linton that are located outside of the Green Belt, should have a role to play in providing development and allowing people greater choice on where they want to live. In locations adjacent to village envelopes, where locations are deemed sustainable the restrictions on scale of development should be lifted and be seen on a case by case basis.

Nothing chosen

It is advanced on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Cottenham) 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 aceptable 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, particulalry 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

8.2 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. 8.3 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 public transport, 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 considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site in question is suitable in other terms including its access to transport and services, and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

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.

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 Gamlingay, 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.

Highly flexible

2.30 Yes, the Local Plan should be more flexible about the size of developments within villages and on the edge of villages. 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.

Nothing chosen

It is advanced on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Willingham) 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 accetpableat such villages is not considered to be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework's assertion to achieve 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

It is advanced on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Waterbeach) 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 aceptable 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, particulalry 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.

Somewhat flexible

• A modest scale of growth depending on the size of the village might be acceptable. This should be located within the Village Framework with priority given to housing people from the local community. • As a general principle, growth should not be scattered across the villages of South Cambridgeshire but concentrated in a few of the larger villages where the necessary infrastructure and support services can be provided. Growth of villages should be a low priority in the Development Sequence – see response to Q42

Nothing chosen

Steeple Morden has absorbed a sizable number of new dwellings within its framework over the past 20 years. There are few sites remaining that could accommodate a Group level designation of 8 houses exceptionally rising to 15. However the designation should remain to indicate its position in the sustainability hierarchy and the sensitivity of its character to development.

Nothing chosen

Our Neighbourhood Plan specifies that developments should be designed in at most 50 home packages, with a different look and feel in each so that the essential mixed look and feel character of the community is maintained. The village framework currently is so tight to the edge of the existing housing that there is no scope for larger developments within the framework. With larger developments (which must by necessity be on the peripheral of the existing development) comes the risk of coalescing nearby villages: an outcome we would deplore. Smaller developments do not have enough scope for major infrastructure developments on their own. A contribution to such from each development should be raised so that once several are complete the requisite infrastructure can be in place.

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.

Highly flexible

1.50 Our clients believe that the Councils should be highly flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries. The Councils need to focus on the delivery of more medium and some larger scale developments in the more sustainable rural locations like Comberton. Our clients’ site could easily accommodate a number of new homes in excess of the arbitrary number normally permitted within the development frameworks of Minor Rural Centres. These new homes will have real benefits for the village, including the potential to deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing. Clearly this is a location where growth of the village should be allocated either as a stand-alone development or as an early phase of a larger extension of the village. The extension of the Comberton development framework to include the larger site would also result in well defined boundaries to the village along Branch Road and Green End.

Highly flexible

1.48 Our client believes that the Councils should be highly flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries. The Councils need to focus on the delivery of more medium and some larger scale developments in the more sustainable rural locations like Comberton. Our client’s site at Bennell Farm is an excellent example of where a number of dwellings have been permitted in excess of the arbitrary number normally permitted within the development frameworks of Minor Rural Centres. These new homes will have real benefits for the village, including the delivery of a policy compliant level of affordable housing, and as such further growth should be allocated to the site to allow the extension northwards of this successful development.

Nothing chosen

7.1 We think the development strategy should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries by recalibrating the settlement hierarchy based not only on existing levels of services and facilities in each settlement but also the potential sustainability enhancing effect of accommodating growth, particularly where the carbon footprint can be demonstrated to be particularly low, and embracing to zero carbon. 7.2 It is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 7.3Existing settlement frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 7.4 Considering future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in highly sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: - Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; - Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; - Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; - New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; - Provision of much needed affordable housing; - Local employment generation; - Health and well-being through both commuting and recreational purposes; - New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and - Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 7.5 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 7.6 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 7.7 Further, significant weight should be given to proposals that seek to minimise their carbon footprint and embrace renewable energy, and highly sustainable forms of living. Developments that can make a contribution to de-carbonising should be prioritised, and it is for developers to demonstrate how and where this can be best achieved.

Nothing chosen

NPPF paragraph 59 reminds of the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Paragraph 117 requires planning policies and decisions to promote effective use of land while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Setting arbitrary numerical limits on development would be contrary to this national policy. Instead, the appropriate number of dwellings on any site would be established throught the application of criteria-based policies that achieve the safeguarding requirements of paragraph 117. The same should apply to sites on the edges of settlements.

Somewhat flexible

No answer given

Nothing chosen

It is advanced on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments (Swavesey) 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 aceptable 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, particulalry 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

As with development on the edge of villages, development within village boundaries should give consideration to settlement character and identity. Development of jobs and homes should seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment through appropriate development that minimises harm to the historic environment through careful siting and appropriate design. There may be some villages that are more or less suited to absorbing additional growth, in part dependent upon their historic character and settlement morphology. Consideration will need to be given to the capacity of individual villages and their sensitivity to change

Nothing chosen

There should be sufficient flexibility towards size of housing developments allowed within village boundaries, so that applications can be considered on their merits. A set size limit applied to all villages irrespective of their nature and size may prevent what would otherwise be appropriate development for that village.

Nothing chosen

European Propoerty Ventures (Cambridgeshire) advance that the approach of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan tshould encourage further development at sustainable villages through the expansion of existing village frameworks. The application of overly prescriptive guidance of what is then aceptable 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, particulalry 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

No. It is better to develop more smaller sites within villages than few large sites because this is less likely to damage village character. The East Cambs. approach exemplified by the proposed 500 house development at Kennett and excessive numbers of large sites around Soham must be resisted. The density per hectare of new build should reflect the current South Cambs. village hierarchy to maintain the unique necklace of villages in the district and hence the identified individual village character and heritage in the current plan.

Nothing chosen

- The approach should take into account the circumstances of the village such as its size, whether or not it is in the Green Belt, its conservation status, the green space contribution of the sites in question and the wishes of the existing community.

Nothing chosen

2.10 Summary Answer: We think the development strategy should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries by recalibrating the settlement hierarchy based not only on existing levels of services and facilities in each settlement but also the potential sustainability enhancing effect of accommodating growth. 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Nothing chosen

Yes, in considering locations for housing in close proximity to Addenbrooke’s Hospital, we would encourage the plan to consider the wider merits of accessibility to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Addenbrooke’s Hospital, and the housing needs of our staff. There may be village locations that could provide wholly appropriate home locations for staff working at CBC.

Somewhat flexible

3.36 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. 3.37 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. 3.38 There should also be more flexibility in considering applications which are located outside village boundaries, provided the site in question is suitable in other terms including its access to transport and services, and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations.

Nothing chosen

We would recommend that housing appropriate to the needs of staff on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) is sited in accessible locations by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). There may be village locations that could provide wholly appropriate home locations for staff working at CBC.

Somewhat flexible

7.3.1 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. 7.3.2 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

11.1 The Greater Cambridge Local Plan should be flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries. The Local Plan preparation process should have due regard for the size of a village and its sustainability credentials, however, it is vital that potential development sites are considered on their individual merits to allow for the efficient use of land. Setting arbitrary limits on the scale of development restricts development and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework’s goal of making most efficient use of land and boosting the supply of housing. 11.2 Through the plan preparation process it is likely that the Councils will identify sustainable sites for development; and sites capable of release from the Green Belt; but then choose not to allocate this land for development. Should this eventuality arise it is strongly recommended that such sites are identified in planning policy as ‘Reserve Sites’. Such sites would then come forward for development should there be a demonstrable shortfall in housing supply and delivery rates in the plan area. 11.3 Adopting this positive and proactive approach to housing growth, through the GCLP, would help ensure the continued supply of new housing and allow the Council to have policy mechanism in place to release the next most sustainable sites for development should the need arise. To ensure the timely submission of planning applications and avoid the potential need to partially review the Plan and or the Proposals Map it is strongly recommended that Reserve Sites are included with the village boundary and are released from the Green Belt as required.