Question 47. What do you think about growing our villages?

Ok, but find it difficult to believe it would make enough of an impact, as a lot of people would likely still work in the city. Unless public transport was made significantly better, it would also lead to a lot more road traffic. A lot of people would potentially rather live in the city and closer to work, but have been driven out by high house prices. Priority should therefore be for more and cheaper housing in the city.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in key villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy for example. The key villages where further development should be focused are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located close to transport corridors including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in several key villages is appropriate and we specifically suggest Cottenham. In this context, village growth should specifically include both homes and employment land. It is noteworthy that in the adopted Local Plan, new settlements and science/research parks aside, only two village employment allocations were made under E/5 – at Papworth and Over. This is a very small level of new employment land for the rural areas over the whole plan period and we believe that sort of approach is counterproductive to reducing travel.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focused are those: • Located close to Cambridge so as to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment e.g. Ickleton (within cycle and walking distance - 1.2km, to The Wellcome Genome Campus with circa 2,600 staff); • Which benefit from proximity to railway stations e.g. Ickleton - 1.6km from Great Chesterford station which is on the Cambridge to London Line.; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities commensurate with their size - e.g. Ickleton; and • Those located close to transport corridors including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure or employment for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in the majority of villages is a good thing. It would be desirable to place a ceiling (e.g. a %) of the total housing requirements which might be dispersed to villages – based on Figure 23 of the Paper and we would suggest that the current 35% increases and it will need to in any event if there is no further provision in new settlements. There are some villages in South Cambridgeshire (e.g. Ickleton) which are currently designated as Infill Villages and, consequently, there has been very little development or change for some years. That is not a healthy scenario when there are young locals wishing to live in a particular village and elderly residents who may wish to downsize. The range of existing services in Ickleton, for example, suggest that a modest level of further residential development would be appropriate.

The existing policies with regard to villages should be maintained so as to protect the character, particularly of the smaller villages and any conservation areas.

Leave the villages alone. People move to villages for a very good reason, not to be made in to a town or suburb. We want our greenbelt and our villages otherwise we should live in central Cambridge. LEAVE OUR VILLAGES ALONE

Village growth is vital for sustaining existing village communities and supporting existing infrastructure (e.g. schools and shops) that could easily be lost without fresh blood.

Development in our villages, especially the smaller ones, is contrary to the aim of lowering carbon emissions in the district due to increasing private car usage. In some circumstances building homes on rural brownfield sites could generate more carbon emissions than their current use.

See my answers to any number of preceding questions.

We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge so as to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Llocated on transport corridors including public transport and particularly those near a railway station; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities; and We consider that the site promoted for residential development at Whittlesford Bridge by our client would be a highly sustainable location for new development. Whilst Whittlesford Bridge is physically distinct from Whittlesford itself, there is a large degree of interconnectivity between the two. However, from the point-of-view of access to public transport and access to employment, Whittlesford Bridge can be said to be better located to both, given the proximity of the railway station and the employment area immediately to the south of the A505 and to the south of Duxford. There are also a number of services within Whittlesford bridge itself, including a public house, hotel and assorted employment uses within the settlement. Policy E/15(2c) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at Hinxton Road (to the south of Duxford) as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport. The site can be accessed from Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. In addition to the above employment allocation, the site is within reasonable walking and cycling distance of Granta Park, Great Abington which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2d) of the adopted Local Plan. It is also located close to Babraham Institute which, whilst it does not have a specific employment allocation, is a major source of employment. Other employment sites include the cluster around Great Chesterford station and the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus at Hinxton which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2e) of the adopted Local Plan. Policy E/15(2k) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at the former Spicers site, Sawston as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport and given the interest in the site for research and development uses by technology firm Huawei. This very real investment by a large firm is a key reason why the Council should be focusing development in the south of the district in villages such as Whittlesford which are adjacent and accessible to significant sources of employment. Development in such locations would accommodate work forces for such sites in a location which is sustainable and accessible. The site can be accessed from Sawston on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. It is notable that a significant proportion of the employment sites allocated under Policy E/15(2) are to the south of Cambridge and are accessible by public transport and non-car modes, from Whittlesford. The growth of such villages which are well-connected to employment sites should be the focus of the emerging Local Plan in determining the development strategy for the district. The subject site was promoted in the Council’s call for sites consultation in 2012 and was assessed by the Council under site 271 (Land adjacent to Station Road and Duxford Road). The SHLAA assessment states the following in respect of the principle of development at Whittlesford: “A major attraction for choosing this area for housing development is the close proximity of the railway station which has services to Cambridge and London and intermediate stations. In addition, along its western boundary, a frequent bus service (approx. every 60 minutes) operates to Cambridge via Whittlesford and Sawston. The site is within walking and cycling distance of Duxford (1.5km), Hinxton (2.5k) and Whittlesford (1.5km). It has easy access to the A505 and M11 and fast links to international destinations via the rail service to Stansted Airport. A hotel with bar facilities lies close to the edge of the site, to the east of the railway station with an adjacent conference centre. The settlement of Whittlesford Bridge is within a few miles of several major centres of employment in the South Cambridgeshire region; namely: The Human Genome Campus at Hinxton, Science Parks at Abington and Babraham and Hexcel at Duxford.” This is a positive endorsement of the sustainability of the site and the principle of development at Whittlesford. Whilst any development at the site would be determined on its own merits, we consider that the Council’s own assessment of development in this location, demonstrates that it is sustainable and meets the three strands of sustainability, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. This means that development at the site would have far-reaching positive economic, social and environmental benefits.

We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge, to reduce travel (including those within or near the Green Belt); • Located on transport corridors including public transport and particularly those near a railway station; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities; and We consider that the site promoted for residential development on behalf of our client (“Land at Maasrnford Farm, Hunts Road, Duxford”) would be a highly sustainable location for new development. The site is located adjacent to the built form of Duxford, within walking and cycling distance of the numerous local facilities and services in the village. This includes a primary school. It is a logical location for a proportionate extension to the village. The site is also located in close proximity to Whittlesford Parkway station which offers sustainable transport modes to Cambridge and London. Policy E/15(2c) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at Hinxton Road (to the south of Duxford) as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport. The site can be accessed from Duxford on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. In addition to the above employment allocation, the promoted site is within reasonable walking and cycling distance of Granta Park, Great Abington which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2d) of the adopted Local Plan. It is also located close to Babraham Institute which, whilst it does not have a specific employment allocation, is a major source of employment. Other employment sites include the cluster around Great Chesterford station and the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus at Hinxton which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2e) of the adopted Local Plan. Policy E/15(2k) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at the former Spicers site, Sawston as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport and given the interest in the site for research and development uses by technology firm Huawei. This very real investment by a large firm is a key reason why the Council should be focusing development in the south of the district in villages such as Whittlesford which are adjacent and accessible to significant sources of employment. Development in such locations would accommodate work forces for such sites in a location which is sustainable and accessible. The site can be accessed from Sawston on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. It is notable that a significant proportion of the employment sites allocated under Policy E/15(2) are to the south of Cambridge and are accessible by public transport and non-car modes, from Duxford. The growth of such villages which are well-connected to employment sites should be the focus of the emerging Local Plan in determining the development strategy for the district. The promoted site was promoted in the Council’s call for sites consultation in 2012 and was assessed by the Council under site 086 (Maarnford Farm, Hunts Road, Duxford). The conclusion of the SHLAA assessment for this site is positive about development at the site. It states the following: “The site is potentially capable of providing residential development taking account of site factors and constraints.” “Having undertaken an assessment of this site the local planning authority do not have any major concerns as to why the landowner would be unable to deliver a development that complies with current planning policy in respect of density, mix and the provision of onsite facilities whilst still delivering the necessary level of affordable housing, planning obligations and potential community infrastructure levy payments.” This is a positive endorsement of the site and the principle of development at Duxford. Whilst any development at the site would be determined on its own merits, we consider that the Council’s own assessment of development in this location, demonstrates that it is sustainable and meets the three strands of sustainability, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. This means that development at the site would have far-reaching positive economic, social and environmental benefits.

Growth in the villages should be supported to ensure the continued success of the communities, improvements to sustainability by delivering a population mass sufficient to attract and retain services and facilities. Safeguards should be in place to maintain the character of individual settlements in terms of design and materials so that the unique character of a particular location is maintained. Allocations, such as the land off Comberton Road, Toft should be supported as they represent sustainable and managed growth on the edge of settlements, which would help to boost the fortunes of the village and future residents by providing housing close to employment opportunities and the existing facilities within the villages.

Growth in the villages should be supported to ensure the continued success of the communities, improvements to sustainability by delivering a population mass sufficient to attract and retain services and facilities. Safeguards should be in place to maintain the character of individual settlements in terms of design and materials so that the unique character of a particular location is maintained. Allocations, such as the land off Ashwell Road, Steeple Morden should be supported as they represent sustainable and managed growth / infilling in the already built up area, which would help to boost the fortunes of the village and future residents by providing housing close to employment opportunities and the existing facilities within the village.

Our clients has promoted sites to the north of Park Lane and to the west of Croft Close as sites for allocation for residential development. This was undertaken through question 2 of the Issues and Options document. We consider that growth at Histon is highly appropriate, given its proximity to Cambridge and established services/facilities and employment sites. We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Located on transport corridors including public transport and particularly those near a railway station; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities. We consider that the site promoted for residential development would be a highly sustainable location for new development. There are a number of employment allocations in close proximity to Histon and indeed, Cambridge is easily accessible by means other than the private car.

We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Located on transport corridors including public transport and particularly those near a railway station; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities. We consider that the site promoted for residential development would be a highly sustainable location for new development. The Council will be aware that the site is located directly to the south of an existing site which is allocated for housing in the adopted Local Plan. The R.J. Driver Trust and associated bodies are now seeking to take forward development of that land. The allocation is question is known as H/1(c) which allocates 11.64 hectares of land for approximately 260 dwellings The land subject to this promotion is also owned by the R.J. Driver Trust and they are now seeking to gain a site allocation on land to the south, which was subject to promotion in the call for sites process in March 2019. The site in question comprises 10.66 hectares of agricultural land which could accommodate approximately 238 dwellings. As the R.J. Driver Trust has control over both sites, it is reasonable to assume that access to/from the site subject to this promotion could be brought through allocation H/1(c) and that access could be reserved, if that allocation was sold to a developer. The ultimate vehicular access would be taken off Babraham Road with opportunities for bicycle/pedestrian link to Sawston, to the west of the site. The Council should note that the land subject to allocation H/1(c) and this promotion was promoted to the Council as a single plot in the call for sites process for the adopted Local Plan in 2012-2013. However, only the land subject to allocation H/1(c) (approximately half of the total land promoted) was allocated in the adopted Local Plan. The remainder of the land comprises Green Belt. The entire plot, comprising 17.21 hectares, promoted in 2012-2013 was known as site 178 (Land east of Sawston). The SHLAA Assessment is useful in that it identifies that Sawston is a sustainable village and is a suitable location for additional growth. “The site is potentially capable of providing residential development taking account of site factors and constraints including avoiding undue intensified use of Church Lane, and the creation of soft green village edges to the east and south.” “Having undertaken an assessment of this site the local planning authority do not have any major concerns as to why the landowner would be unable to deliver a development that complies with current planning policy in respect of density, mix and the provision of onsite facilities whilst still delivering the necessary level of affordable housing, planning obligations and potential community infrastructure levy payments. In summary this site is not considered to have any barriers, in terms of development viability alone, to restrict it coming forward within the next 5 years (new settlements and other very large developments may take longer than 5 years to come forward).” This is a positive endorsement of development in Sawston and we consider that the site subject to this promotion is a logical extension of allocation H/1(c). We note that Sawston is located in close proximity to a number of established employment allocations and we consider that the location of residential development in such locations is appropriate as it means that such sources of employment can be reached by modes other than the private car. Policy E/15(2k) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at the former Spicers site, Sawston as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport and given the interest in the site for research and development uses by technology firm Huawei. This very real investment by a large firm is a key reason why the Council should be focusing development in the south of the district in villages such as Sawston which are adjacent and accessible to significant sources of employment. Development in such locations would accommodate work forces for such sites in a location which is sustainable and accessible. The site can be accessed from Sawston on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. In addition to the above employment allocation, the site is within reasonable walking and cycling distance of Granta Park, Great Abington which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2d) of the adopted Local Plan. It is also located close to Babraham Institute which, whilst it does not have a specific employment allocation, is a major source of employment. Other employment sites include the cluster around Great Chesterford station and the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus at Hinxton which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2e) of the adopted Local Plan. It is notable that a significant proportion of the employment sites allocated under Policy E/15 are to the south of Cambridge and are accessible by public transport and non-car modes, from Sawston. The growth of such villages which are well-connected to employment sites should be the focus of the emerging Local Plan in determining the development strategy for the district.

We believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy in the adopted Local Plan (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Located on transport corridors including public transport; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • With a healthy level of local services and facilities. We consider that the site promoted for residential development in the Council’s call for sites process in March 2019 (“Land south of Common Lane, Sawston”) would be a highly sustainable location for new development. Sawston is located in close proximity to a number of established employment allocations and we consider that the location of residential development in such locations is appropriate as it means that such sources of employment can be reached by modes other than the private car. Policy E/15(2k) of the adopted Local Plan allocates land at the former Spicers site, Sawston as employment land. It is reasonable to assume that this site would retain this allocation in the long-term, given its extent and accessibility by public transport. The site can be accessed from Sawston on foot or by bicycle, by a dedicated pavement/cycle path. The proximity and accessibility of the site to the proposed allocation would promote sustainable transport means between the two and would mean that journeys by the private car could be reduced. The proximity of employment land to housing (and vice versa) should be an important theme in the emerging Local Plan and we consider that the proposed allocation would be well-placed to meet this aim. In addition to the above employment allocation, the site is within reasonable walking and cycling distance of Granta Park, Great Abington which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2d) of the adopted Local Plan. It is also located close to Babraham Institute which, whilst it does not have a specific employment allocation, is a major source of employment. Other employment sites include the cluster around Great Chesterford station and the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus at Hinxton which is an allocated employment site under Policy E/15(2e) of the adopted Local Plan. It is notable that a significant proportion of the employment sites allocated under Policy E/15 are to the south of Cambridge and are accessible by public transport and non-car modes, from Sawston. The growth of such villages which are well-connected to employment sites should be the focus of the emerging Local Plan in determining the development strategy for the district.

Most villages don't have the facilities to support more growth and more housing without increased infrastructure development leads to tension within villages.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in key villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy for example. The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located close to transport corridors including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in several key villages is appropriate and we specifically suggest Great Shelford and Stapleford.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in key villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy for example. The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located close to transport corridors, including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in several key villages is appropriate and we specifically suggest Swavesey.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Stapleford, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported; the response to this question is also relevant to Question 45. As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing, affordable housing and housing for older people in Greater Cambridge and Stapleford. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt around Cambridge, including at Stapleford, is a realistic option. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted developments at land east of Hinton Way and land west of Haverhill Road in Stapleford would support the existing good range of services and facilities available in the village. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short-term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such those promoted by Axis Land Partnerships in Stapleford are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, Stapleford is very accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. It is well-related to the proposed new public transport route between Haverhill and Cambridge. The promoted development is well-related to the services and facilities in Stapleford by sustainable modes of transport. As set out in the call for sites submissions, there are no significant constraints to development at land east of Hinton Way and land west of Haverhill Road in Stapleford. The sites make a limited contribution to the Green Belt and could be released to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and housing for older people. The promoted developments would include a sizeable open space and strategic landscaping, which would retain the openness of most of the Green Belt in this location and would enhance the setting of the sites and the surrounding area. Overall, Stapleford is a suitable village for additional development.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land at Bury Farm in Meldreth would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the convenience store, public house and bus services. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land at Bury Farm in Meldreth are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the promoted development at land at Bury Farm in Meldreth is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and is well-related to Meldreth Station. As set out in the call for sites submission for land at Bury Farm in Meldreth, the site is partly previously developed land and the existing buildings would be demolished. The promoted development would remove the existing use from the site, which would provide benefits to the village in terms of removing noise, odour and traffic movements associated with the existing turkey factory operation. There are no significant constraints to development at the site.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Fulbourn, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported. It is considered that in reality the development strategy will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options. As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt at the villages surrounding Cambridge, including Fulbourn, is a realistic option. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land off Home End in Fulbourn would support the existing good range of services and facilities available in the village. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short-term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land off Home End in Fulbourn are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, Fulbourn is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and the promoted development is well-related to the services and facilities in the village by sustainable modes of transport. It is considered that the current Important Countryside Frontage designation (Policy NH/13 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018) directly affects the opportunity for some villages to grow. It is requested that the current Important Countryside Frontage policy and designations are reviewed, including at land off Home End in Fulbourn, in order to determine the extent of the frontage that needs to be retained and whether some or all of the land to the rear could be developed. In most villages, including Fulbourn, there are a variety of designations that prevent or limit the opportunity for development including Green Belt, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Protected Open Space and Protected Village Amenity Areas. It is considered that the Important Countryside Frontage designation adds a further policy layer preventing the delivery of development in those villages where it applies. The land off Home End is surrounded by buildings and a car park, and is not an important countryside frontage. The site does not provide a ‘significant’ connection between the street scene and surrounding rural area, and there are sport and recreation facilities and associated car parking areas between the site and the countryside beyond. It is considered that the Important Countryside Frontage designation at land off Home End is not justified in this location. As set out in the call for site submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land off Home End in Fulbourn. Fulbourn Conservation Area will need to be protected, but careful and sensitive design of the promoted development would ensure that this heritage asset is protected. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt, and could be released to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. Fulbourn is a suitable village for additional development.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Fulbourn, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported. It is considered that in reality the development strategy will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options. As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt at the villages surrounding Cambridge, including Fulbourn, is a realistic option. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land off Balsham Road in Fulbourn would support the existing good range of services and facilities available in the village. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short-term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land off Balsham Road in Fulbourn are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, Fulbourn is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and the promoted development is well-related to the services and facilities in the village by sustainable modes of transport. As set out in the call for site submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land off Balsham Road in Fulbourn. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt, and could be released to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would include a significant amount of green infrastructure and strategic landscaping to avoid impacts on landscape character and important views, and to enhance the setting of the village. As such, large parts of the promoted development would remain open. Overall, Fulbourn is a suitable village for additional development.

The College considers that for most villages the growth potential will be comparatively small given their character and location surrounded by the Green Belt. However, as set out at Q40, Q41 and Q44, we consider there is strategic growth potential by expanding Duxford village. Duxford village is not within or surrounded by the Green Belt and whilst the historic village core is within a conservation area (with a number of listed buildings) the village fringe (to which new development would be adjacent) is a collection of 1970s/1980s housing developments, outside the conservation area. Duxford's growth rate is below average and as a consequence, there is a concern the existing services base will erode in time. There is now therefore, an opportunity to provide a sustainable long-term future for the village, introducing a new, balanced and inclusive population, with enhanced services and infrastructure base. New homes, services and a Country Park would be co-located with a high technology aviation focused employment cluster (“AvTech”) where walking and cycling would be the preferred choice of travel on site creating a degree of self-containment.

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy. The key villages where further development should be focused are those: • Located close to Cambridge so as to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment – e.g. Balsham; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. schools – e.g. Balsham; and • Those located on transport corridors e.g. Balsham. In light of the above, villages such as Balsham to the south of the city would be a very sustainable location for new development. Balsham is a sustainable village with ample existing key services: • Balsham Stores & Post Office; • The Meadow Primary School; • Village Hall / Church Institute; • Coffee Shop; • The Black Bull Inn; • The Bell Inn; and • The Church of the Holy Trinity. Balsham also has a regular bus service from the High Street with services to Cambridge, Addenbrookes, Great Thurlow, Linton, Haverhill and Newmarket. In addition, Balsham is already in close proximity to existing and planned employment such as: • Granta Park – Located 11 km from Balsham and is accessible by car (10mins) and by bike (25mins). Granta Park employs in excess of 2,000 people and has further planning permission to expand. • Babraham Research Campus – Located 12.5km from Balsham which is accessible by car (12-15mins), by bus (50mins) and by bike (30mins). • Wellcome Genome Campus – Employ circa 2,600 people and is located at Hinxton, 14km from the site which is accessible by car (15mins) and by bike (45mins). Furthermore, Wellcome has recently been granted outline planning permission for the expansion of the Hinxton campus including 150,000 sqm of flexible employment uses. • Addenbrooke’s Teaching Hospital and Research Centre including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus – Located 15.5km from Balsham which is accessible by car (20mins), by the no.16A bus (45mins) and by bike (42mins). In essence, Balsham is in a good position in that at present it has a significant number of jobs within close proximity. In light of this, modest growth (e.g. 25 or more dwellings) of a village such as Balsham should be strongly encouraged.

should be permitted in key villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy for example. The key villages where further development should be focused are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located close to transport corridors including public transport. Building on the above, there clearly needs to be some approach to the scale of development that may be planned in such villages and it clearly needs to be commensurate with the existing village or with planned infrastructure for example. This can only really be considered on a case by case basis assessing the above in relation to various factors but generally we believe that some development (at differing levels) in several key villages is appropriate and we specifically suggest Cottenham. In this context, village growth should specifically include both homes and employment land. It is noteworthy that in the adopted Local Plan, new settlements and science/research parks aside, only two village employment allocations were made under E/5 – at Papworth and Over. This is a very small level of new employment land for the rural areas over the whole plan period and we believe that sort of approach is counterproductive to reducing travel.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land off High Street in Balsham could support the existing services and facilities within the village, including the village shop, post office, public houses, and bus services. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years, and that such sites are located within villages in South Cambridgeshire. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites, such as land off High Street in Balsham, are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the promoted development at land off High Street in Balsham is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.

Very Supportive, Including my own village. I suggest you ignore the NIMBY's.. keep in mind the vast majority of Hardwick is an estate...

Apart from the very smallest rural hamlets we believe that some development should be permitted in all villages and we disagree with the restrictive approach set out in current Infill Village policy (as discussed above). The key villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge so as to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment – e.g. Great Abington; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools; and • Those located on transport corridors including public transport. In light of the above, villages such as Great Abington to the south of the city would be a very sustainable location for new development. These are sustainable villages with ample existing key services: • Great Abington - shop, post office, Three Tuns pub, hall, playing fields, Great Abington Primary School and Great Abington preschool. In addition, the villages listed above are already in close proximity to existing and planned employment. For example, Great Abington is particularly in very close proximity to both Granta Park and Babraham Research Campus. • Granta Park employs in excess of 2,000 people and has further planning permission to expand and is approximately 1.5km from the centre of Great Abington which is a 10-15 minute walk, 6 minutes cycling, and 4 minutes by car; and • Babraham Research Campus which comprises 60 companies and employs in excess of 1,400 staff, is on a direct bus route from the village (7 minute journey) a 12 minute cycle, 40 minute walk and 10 minutes by car. Furthermore, as part of the Cambridge South East Transport - Better Public Transport Project, Pampisford Road, Great Abington is also earmarked as a potential future “public transport link” and well as the new Linton to Cambridge “greenway”. • The Linton Greenway is planned to run along the former Haverhill to Cambridge railway would link Pampisford Road, Great Abington to Granta Park, Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambridge City as well as to Linton. • The new transport link will also link to Great Abington to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus via Great Shelford, Stapleford and Sawston to a new travel hub near the A11/A1307/A505 with connections to Babraham, the Babraham Research Campus and Granta Park. In essence, Great Abington is in a unique position in that at present it has 3,500 jobs on its perimeter, is already on a direct public transport route with further public transport and cycle enhancements planned that will link the village to Cambridge via the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. In light of this, considerable growth (i.e. 100 or more dwellings) of a village such as Great Abington should be strongly encouraged.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land at Two Mill Field and land to the north of Oakington Road in Cottenham would support the existing services and facilities in the village. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. Therefore, it is requested that medium sized sites such as land at Two Mill Field and land to the north of Oakington Road in Cottenham is allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including medium sized sites that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the promoted developments at land at Two Mill Field and land to the north of Oakington Road in Cottenham would be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport to the services and facilities within the village. Cottenham is connected to Cambridge by frequent bus services. There is a shared use path between Cottenham and Histon. As set out in the call for sites submissions, there are no significant constraints to development at land at Two Mill Field and land to the north of Oakington Road in Cottenham. The current agricultural access to the Oakington Road site would need to be upgraded to accommodate the promoted development, but sufficient land is available to accommodate junction improvements. It is not currently possible to gain vehicular access to the Two Mill Field site from the public highway, but access could be gained via the committed development to the west.

Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted developments at land east and west of St Mary’s Lane in Great Abington would support the existing services and facilities in the village including the public house, convenience store, local school and post office, and bus services. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land east and land west of St Mary's Lane in Great Abington are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the promoted developments at land east and west of St Mary’s Lane in Great Abington is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and would be well-related to the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s proposed Cambridge South East transport improvement projects including cycle routes, travel hubs, greenways, and the new public transport route to Cambridge. As set out in the call for sites submissions for land east and west of St Mary’s Lane in Great Abington there are no significant constraints to development at these sites, and therefore it is requested that these sites are allocated in emerging GCLP.