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?

Somewhat flexible

Somewhat flexible. Settlements that have a greater level of service provision should be identified as having greater capacity for growth. Those settlements that are in sustainable, non-Green Belt location should be identified as being able to accommodate to most growth. Village boundaries need to be reviewed to be less restrictive, and land that is adjacent existing settlement boundaries should be assessed with greater detail.

Nothing chosen

2.50. The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan classifies villages into four categories dependent on the availability of local services and public transport connectivity. Whilst broad support is given to this approach it discourages larger scale proposals which could incorporate or unlock the delivery of key facilities. As such the amount of housing (and number of jobs) to be delivered in villages should be considered more positively going forward. 2.51. It is strongly recommended that South Cambridgeshire District Council commissions an up to date settlement assessment identifying key facilities at each settlement taking into consideration planned transport improvements within the area.

Nothing chosen

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.

Nothing chosen

7.6 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 8 dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to 2 dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 8 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. 7.7 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. 7.8 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. For Land to the south of Station Road, Harston, the site is considered to be a suitable location for residential development of approximately 10 dwellings and should therefore become a residential site allocation by extending the village boundary to include the site location. The inclusion of the site would form an appropriate extension to existing development along Station Road and would not have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Nothing chosen

7.4 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 8 dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 15 dwellings; and in Infill Villages (Policy S/11) to 2 dwellings and in exceptional circumstances to 8 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. 7.5 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 and village services and provided it is not overly constrained in terms of other environmental designations. The proposed village extension at Fowlmere is a suitable location for residential development and should therefore become a residential site allocation by extending the village boundary to include the Site location. The inclusion of the site would form an appropriate extension to the village.

Nothing chosen

4.63 This question refers to sites within the village boundary. The key issue in the first instance is where the boundary is drawn. Once set, the boundaries are applied strictly. It is therefore important that boundaries are carefully considered. Once defined, we believe the level of development within the boundary should be highly flexible to allow a variety of development to come forward.

Nothing chosen

4.62 This question refers to sites within the village boundary. The key issue in the first instance is where the boundary is drawn. Once set, the boundaries are applied strictly. It is therefore important that boundaries are carefully considered. Once defined, we believe the level of development within the boundary should be highly flexible to allow a variety of development to come forward.

Nothing chosen

There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within and adjoining village boundaries. The current settlement envelopes for villages, such as Guilden Morden, are so tightly drawn around the existing built-form that there is little room for villages to grow and thrive. Greater consideration needs to be given in identifying suitable land within and adjacent the village boundaries to accommodate sustainable growth, especially in non-Green Belt locations. New development which could enhance the sustainability of the community, through the provision of additional footfall and potential for new community facilities, amenities, transport improvements to be delivered alongside housing to provide a betterment to the wider community, would contribute to a sound and sustainable spatial strategy for the new Local Plan. Future policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings but should instead encourage a design-led approach to achieve an appropriate density and allow consideration of wider community benefits as part of the overall planning balance. Summary of Comments: There should be more flexibility when considering the scale and size of developments that are permitted within and adjoining village boundaries. Future policies should not restrict development to a certain number of dwellings but should instead encourage a design-led approach to achieve an appropriate density and allow consideration of wider community benefits as part of the overall planning balance.

Highly flexible

Highly Flexible Village frameworks can be a useful and effective concept in relation to rural areas in order to ensure a clear distinction between settlements and the wider countryside or Green Belt. Notwithstanding this, it is imperative that village frameworks are imposed in a considered way, and in an appropriate capacity. The allocation of land in villages is required in order to ensure compliance with paragraph 78 of the NPPF as it is acknowledged that villages in the Plan area have an ageing population and there is a decline in the availability of amenities and local services. The existing South Cambridgeshire Local Plan is restrictive of development within rural areas. The current village frameworks are drawn very tightly around the existing built landscape development and do not provide adequate opportunity for rural communities to grow sustainably. It is considered the forthcoming plan is required to be more flexible to address the needs of villages to ensure accordance with paragraph 78 of the NPPF. Settlement boundaries which are implemented as part of Local Plan policies should accord with paragraph 78 of the NPPF which requires policies to provide opportunities for villages to grow and thrive. The boundaries of settlements, particularly rural villages, should provide opportunities for sustainable growth in order to ensure existing facilities and amenities in local communities are retained. The allocation of sites within villages should reflect the established housing need of the local area, particularly where there is a requirement for affordable housing to be delivered. The allocation of sites should take into account whether there is the opportunity for additional public benefits to be delivered as part of development, such as open space, affordable housing and contributions to education or other infrastructure. Where should we site new development? 1- Dispersal - Villages 2- Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt 3- Edge of Cambridge: Outside of Green Belt 4- Public Transport Corridors 5- Densification of existing urban areas 6 - New Settlements It is considered that new development should be dispersed across villages in the Greater Cambridge Area in order to provide sustainable growth. The siting of development across villages ensures that rural communities are afforded the opportunity to accommodate new housing and employment opportunities which would ensure their long-term sustainability. It is acknowledged in the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy that there are issues with affordability of housing in the area and a need for more affordable housing to be delivered to meet the needs of local people. The Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy also notes that existing villages have an ageing population and there is a decline in the provision of amenities and services in rural communities. There is therefore a need to inject new market and affordable housing in rural areas to ensure balanced and mixed communities are established, which in turn ensures that local facilities and amenities continue to be retained. This is required by paragraph 78 of the NPPF which requires planning policy to consider housing to be in rural areas to support services and allow villages to grow sustainably. There is a clear and evidenced need for the provision of a range of housing, particularly Executive development and affordable housing. Indeed, in the South Cambridgeshire District Council 2019 Annual Monitoring Report only 25% of housing delivered during this period were affordable units. Summary of Comments: The Local Plan should be highly flexible when considering the size of development within village frameworks. Frameworks should be drawn appropriately to ensure villages and small settlements can be sustained.

Nothing chosen

The CDF does not propose specific sites. Our response supports development which delivers new homes which are accessible to public transport, local services and jobs, where, with quality design, affordable housing across a range of tenures can be delivered seamlessly as part of the community. Priority should be given to densification in urban areas and previously developed land as well as to development along public transport corridors and on the edge of Cambridge, where housing and jobs can be delivered most sustainably having regard to the goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2050. No one option will provide the level of housing delivery that the local plan identifies as being required and therefore a mixed strategy will be required. Small and medium sized sites should also play a part in this, supporting and enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and providing a proportionate level of growth where needed. We believe that a focus on a mixed strategy is best advocated which is resilient and flexible and provides the homes needed quickly and reliably. The major strategic sites do provide a subsistence level of delivery, but they don’t provide the necessary choice to meet demand and generally provide below policy levels of affordable housing.

Somewhat flexible

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. The proposed village extension at Papworth is a suitable location for residential development and should become a residential site allocation by extending the village boundary to include the site location. The inclusion of the site would form an appropriate and planned extension to the village.

Nothing chosen

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

Nothing chosen

A. Yes, particularly within Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres but additionally more flexibility should be given to the reassessing the boundaries of the village frameworks to allow homes on available sites abutting the existing village boundaries to come forward. B. In order to deliver the most efficient number of homes and make the best use of land, the existing limitation of maximum dwellings numbers on development in Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres should be removed and consideration of appropriate densities should be considered on a site-by-site basis.

Nothing chosen

The Plan should recognise the opportunities which appropriately sized development can bring. It should not be prescriptive about the number of units which are appropriate in particular settlements, but rather should set the principle that appropriate growth will be considered, and the Council should then be prepared to discuss with the applicant what that specific number will be. Paragraph 5.3 of the Plan sets out six potential options for growth and Q42 asks where new development should be sited. The question asks us to rank the six options provided in order of preference. Our preference, recognising that the final strategy may comprise a mix of a number of options, is: 1. Dispersal – villages 2. Edge of Cambridge – outside Green Belt 3. Public Transport Corridors 4. Densification of existing urban areas 5. Dispersal – new settlements 6. Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt. Below, we address the advantages and challenges associated with our preferred option, identified in the Plan.

Somewhat flexible

2.76 Yes, subject to meeting sustainable development objectives.

Nothing chosen

Please see section 8.0 of the accompanying representations document.

Nothing chosen

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. 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.

Nothing chosen

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.