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

Strongly agree. 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. It should be noted that some villages, including Dry Drayton, are also located in the Green Belt, and as such development options that include these locations is supported. 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 some land from the Green Belt around villages is a realistic option. Paragraph 78 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 Park Lane in Dry Drayton could support the existing services and facilities within the village, including the public house, village hall, 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 Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land at Park Lane in Dry Drayton 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 park Lane in Dry Drayton is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and would be well-related to the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s proposed walking and cycling improvements on Madingley Road. As set out in the call for site submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land at Park Lane in Dry Drayton, and the site could be released from the Green Belt to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots.

There is limited capacity for growing many of the smaller villages without harming their character. Many villages do not have good public transport links so building there would lead to more car journeys and more congestion on roads. Growth should only be considered in larger villages which are served by reliable and frequent public transport.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Histon, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported. 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 Histon, 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 rear of 113 Cottenham Road in Histon would support the existing good range of services and facilities available in Histon. 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 rear of 113 Cottenham Road in Histon 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, Histon 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 rear of 113 Cottenham Road in Histon. 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. Histon is a suitable village for additional development.

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 Fulbourn.

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. 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. 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 tend to be available in and 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 are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner has promoted such sites at a number of villages, including Bassingbourn, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden, Foxton, Landbeach, Sawston and Shepreth.

Strongly agree. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, and acknowledges the role that housing has in enhancing or maintaining the vitality of rural communities and supporting local services. Elsworth is located to the north of Cambourne and to the west of Papworth Everard. Cambridge is 14 km to the south east. Elsworth has good connections to the strategic road network, via the A428 and A14. Elsworth is defined as a Group Village in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, containing some services and facilities and suitable for some additional development. Cambourne and Papworth Everard provide additional services and facilities not provided within Elsworth. Land at Meadow Drift, Elsworth is located to the north west of Elsworth and forms an ‘L’ shape that wraps around the north and west of the Primary School. The site currently forms three distinct areas of land. The north eastern part is currently in use as allotments with mature trees on the frontage to Meadow Drift. The central section comprises agricultural land (pasture), bounded by a mature hedge line to the west and east, providing a degree of screening. The south western part comprises part of a larger agricultural field (arable) extending towards Rogue’s Lane. A public footpath runs north-south through the site in the south western corner, linking Broad End and the open countryside. It would be retained and incorporated into the development. The boundaries of the site are hedged, interspersed with trees. The site is well screened from most sides. The consideration of application reference S/4550/17/FL has confirmed that the site can accommodate 16 dwellings, including six affordable homes, a school car park and drop off area, ecological mitigation area and new allotments without any technical objections. The proposals would deliver numerous benefits including: Allotments: The proposed development of the site would provide new allotments of an area not less than the existing and which would be serviced and in addition provided with parking. School drop off and parking: The proposals would provide a designated parking and drop off zone for the primary school and pre-school; including new pedestrian access arrangements to the latter. Affordable housing: The proposals would deliver six new affordable homes. Housing: The scheme would be of a high-quality design and of a mix to meet identified needs. Sustainable Community: The scheme will support local facilities and services, including the primary school and pre-school, the community shop and pubs. All necessary technical reports demonstrating that the proposed development is deliverable have already been undertaken and confirmed as acceptable by all relevant consultees.

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 villages where further development should be focussed are those: • Located close to Cambridge to reduce travel (including those surrounded by Green Belt); • Those which are immediately adjoining areas of large scale growth i.e. Longstanton which is adjacent to Northstowe • 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 the guided bus route 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 adjacent large-scale development or with planned infrastructure. 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 Longstanton

8.5 Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported. 8.6 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. 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 is a realistic option. 8.7 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. 8.8 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.

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 Fulbourn and indeed, Cambridge is easily accessible by means other than the private car. We note the following key employment allocations which are in reasonable wlaking and cycling distance from Fulbourn: • Policy E/3 (Fulbourn Road East): 6.9 hectares of land adjoining Peterhouse Technology Park for employment use; • Policy E/15(2d) (Granta Park, Great Abington): Allocated employment site; • Policy H/3 (Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals). These are in additional to the numerous employment opportunities in Cambridge itself and local employment opportunities in Fulbourn. 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 Fulbourn. 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 note that the first two “greenways” which will provide off-road routes to connect villages and the city have been given final approval. The Greater Cambridge Partnership committed £14 million on 01 February 2020 for greenways to Waterbeach and Fulbourn. Construction is planned to commence October 2023, with completion expected by September 2024. The Fulbourn greenway will link the village with Cambridge railway station, via Cherry Hinton and will provide off-road connections for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Given that Fulbourn is to be linked to Cambridge via a dedicated off-road greenway, we consider that the village should be a suitable candidate for growth as such measures will encourage and promote access to employment opportunities by non-car modes and will promote transport between the residential and employment uses by sustainable means.

Our client has promoted a site at Albert Road, Stow-cum-Quy for residential development. This was undertaken through question 2 of the Issues and Options document. We consider that growth at Stow-cum-Quy 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); • With a healthy level of local services and facilities; • Located on transport corridors including public transport; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; 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 Stow-cum-Quy and indeed, Cambridge is easily accessible by means other than the private car.

Our client has promoted a site at Horningsea Road, Fen Ditton for residential development. This was undertaken through question 2 of the Issues and Options document. We consider that growth at Fen Ditton is 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); • With a healthy level of local services and facilities; • Located on transport corridors including public transport; • Which benefit from proximity to a reasonable scale of existing or planned employment; We consider that the site being promoted for residential development would be a highly sustainable location for new development. There are a number of employment allocations in Fen Ditton and indeed, Cambridge is easily accessible by means other than the private car.

Pigeon consider that the existing villages of South Cambridgeshire offer greater potential to fulfill the needs for jobs and homes in the district than has been recognized in the current Local Plan. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas. Such an approach enables communities to grow and thrive, particularly where they benefit from location within strategic corridors where sustainable travel options exist. The community infrastructure base, whilst in many cases requiring expansion, nevertheless forms a sound base for further growth that does not exist in new settlements, for example. The net impact on the existing community of such development, where well-planned and of high quality can be positive. Moderate expansion of villages through the identification of small to medium size sites avoids many of the lead-in problems that delay delivery of development in new settlements and should form a strong element of the next Local Plan. The scale of growth proposed at villages should properly reflect improvements to the sustainability of the settlement due to planned improvements to public transport infrastructure such as those being proposed between Cambourne and Cambridge where this would not conflict with other NPPF considerations such as heritage, ecology and flood risk.

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. As set out in the response to Qu.32, Barton Willmore assessed housing delivery, existing allocations and commitments and potential strategic allocations to inform how and where the housing requirements should be distributed. 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 south of Old House Road in Balsham could support the existing services and facilities within the village, including the village shop, post office, public houses, and bus services. As identified in the Barton Wilmore report, it is considered that the GCLP should take the approach within the Taylor Review (2008) to review whether additional development will enhance the sustainability of the location in which it is taking place, rather than basing the decision on the existing situation. 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 south of Old House Road in Balsham, are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. It is predicted that the promoted development would be completed within one year once planning permission has been granted. 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 south of Old House Road in Balsham is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. As set out in the call for site submission and the supporting technical work for the site, there are no significant constraints to development at land south of Old House Road in Balsham. For example, the site is not in the Green Belt and is not affected by any heritage assets. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 which means it has a low probability of flood risk. The trees and hedgerows would be retained at the site and additional planting would be provided at the site boundary, and as a result there should not be a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the village. There is an existing access to the site, which will need to be upgraded to provide footways and junction arrangements for the promoted development and mitigation measures to protect residential amenity. The promoted development would include biodiversity enhancement measures, including additional landscaping with native planting and bird and bat boxes. For all these reasons it is requested that land south of Old House Road in Balsham is allocated for residential development in emerging GCLP. The Proposed Block Plan and Development Brief (prepared by Saunders Boston Architects) submitted with the call for sites response explained the design and layout of the promoted development, and could be used as a basis for a site allocation.

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 south of St Neots Road, Eltisely could support the existing services and facilities within the village, including the primary school, day nursery, public house and bus service. 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 south of St Neots Road Eltisely, 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 south of St Neots Road Eltisely is accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.

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. As set out in the response to Qu.32, Barton Willmore assessed housing delivery, existing allocations and commitments and potential strategic allocations to inform how and where the housing requirements should be distributed. 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 developments promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn would not only support the existing services and facilities within the village, including a secondary school, primary school, convenience store, post office, doctor's surgery, dentist, pharmacy, public houses, mobile library, sports centre, outdoor recreation areas, and bus services; but could also provide additional demand and critical mass such that a broader range of services and facilities become available. As identified in the Barton Wilmore report, it is considered that the GCLP should take the approach within the Taylor Review (2008) to review whether additional development will enhance the sustainability of the location in which it is taking place, rather than basing the decision on the existing situation. 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 those promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn - at land off Poplar Farm Close, land off Elbourn Way, and, land off The Causeway - are allocated in the emerging GCLP to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable. It is predicted that the promoted developments would be completed within one to two years once planning permission has been granted. 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 developments promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. As set out in the call for site submissions the supporting technical work for the sites, there are no significant constraints at promoted developments for Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn - at land off Poplar Farm Close, land off Elbourn Way, and land off The Causeway. For example, none of the sites are in the Green Belt. There are heritage assets in Bassingbourn and adjacent to some of the promoted sites, but the initial heritage assessments for the sites demonstrate that there are no constraints to the promoted developments and mitigation measures including appropriate design and layout are possible. The proposed dwellings would be located on those parts of the site which are not subject to flood risk. The trees and hedgerows on the sites would be retained. A vehicular and pedestrian access can be provided at all of the promoted developments. The promoted developments would include biodiversity enhancement measures. For all these reasons it is requested that the following sites promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn are allocated for residential development in emerging GCLP: • land off Poplar Farm Close – for approximately 7 dwellings; • land off Elbourn Way – for between 65 and 80 dwellings; and, • land off The Causeway – for approximately 80 dwellings.

The call for sites submissions were accompanied by a Vision Document (prepared by Nicholas Jacob Architects) which included an Indicative Masteplan Concept Plan for the promoted developments. The Vision Document could form the basis for the site allocations.

Not likely to be a sustainable option for Infill Villages. Not a lot of scope for growth in Group Villages without changing character significantly, and not likely to be sustainable there either.

That must be up to the people living in the villages.

Some additional population is helpful but too much exceeds the capapbility of the village to absorb the extra numbers and can cause resentment.

This one of the worst options as the character of a village is more easily destroyed by growth and is the most likely scenario for creating commuter hubs as it's more difficult to provide a wide range of jobs within a village.

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 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. Ickleton (within cycle and walking distance - 1km, 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 train 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. In light of the above, villages such as Ickleton to the south of the city would be a very sustainable location for new development. These are sustainable villages with ample existing key services: • Ickleton – Village Shop (Costcutter), Cricket Club, Village Hall, the Ickleton Lion Public House, Church of St. Mary Magdalen, Social Club, Hairdresser, café and skate park. • Great Chesterford railway station is 1.6km to the south of Ickleton which is on the Cambridge to London train line. In addition, the villages listed above are already in close proximity to existing and planned employment. For example, Ickleton is particularly in very close proximity to • Wellcome Genome Campus – Employ circa 2,600 people and is located at Hinxton, approximately 1km from Ickleton which is accessible on foot (15-20mins) and by bike (3mins) and by car (3-5mins). Furthermore, a planning application for the expansion of the Hinxton campus including 150,000 sqm of flexible employment uses was approved in 2019. • Duxford – Various employment such as Huntsman Advance Materials (chemical manufacturer) and Hexcel Composites (Aerospace Engineers) are located only 1.8km from Ickleton (2-5min by car, 10min by bus, 25min on foot and 5-7min cycle). 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. Furthermore, 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.

Strongly agree. Particularly where these villages are well-connected via transport corridors. 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. Papworth Everard is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in South Cambridgeshire District Council's current settlement hierarchy and therefore sits towards the top of the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Papworth Everard contains an extensive range of services and facilities including a convenience store, hairdressers, fish and chip shop, coffee shop and a restaurant, a primary school, children’s nurseries, post office, library, doctor’s surgery/health centre, veterinary surgery, churches and village hall. Development has also commenced to deliver a bakery, microbrewery and Public House on the former print works site, south of Church Lane. Accessibility to these services from the site is illustrated on the submitted drawings produced by MLM. As will be noted – see Connections Plan, the site is very well connected to existing services and facilities within the village. Papworth Hospital has previously been the main employer in the village although the facilities and functions of the hospital have now been relocated. The former hospital site is however positively promoted within the adopted plan for future employment generating uses. Papworth Business Park, located at the southern edge of the village, is the main employment area. The services, facilities and employment opportunities which exist within Papworth Everard are all reflective of its designation as a Minor Rural Centre. Where people do need to travel out of the village, access to an established bus service which provides connections from the village to Cambourne, St Neots, Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives. The main bus route is provided by the X3 bus. While this service currently provides an hourly service, there are gaps in the timetable during the AM and PM peak hour. As a result it is very difficult for residents of Papworth to utilise this as a commuter service. It was therefore agreed with the operator during the consideration of the previous applications on the site that the development would deliver enhancements to the service to provide additional services in the AM and PM peak hours. In addition to the above, Cambridgeshire County Council are seeking to deliver a cycle and pedestrian link from Papworth to Cambourne. It is the County Council’s intention to deliver a 2m wide cycle path along the eastern side of the A1198 to provide a link between the existing cycle path located north of the A1198/A428 junction, and the existing footpath network at the southern point of Papworth. The County’s programme for delivering this connection are not known at this time, it was however agreed that the previous applications would contribute towards the delivery of this link. When delivered, it will provide a direct cycle link to Cambourne and all of the facilities provided within it. Papworth Everard and land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard are sustainably located to accommodate much needed new housing development which will also ensure the existing facilities and services within the village are supported. This accords with paragraph 78 of the NPPF which seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges the role that housing has in enhancing or maintaining the vitality of rural communities and supporting local services. The proposed development would also deliver a number of benefits including significant areas of public open space, green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. The protected trees within the site would be retained and significant new woodland planting would take place. The proposals would also include for the benefits that were associated with the previous proposal for the site including: reserve land for a pre-school facility; contributions towards primary and secondary school provision; library contribution; contribution for improvements to Papworth Surgery; enhancements to off-site public footpaths; enhancements to bus services to deliver an additional service in the peak hour; contributions towards cycle and pedestrian links between Papworth Everard and Cambourne.

• A few villages may be able to accept and support some modest growth, but this can only be determined by close consultation with each village. Priority should be given to housing people from the local community, rather than allowing growth that treats Fulbourn as a dormitory village, or benefits those buying properties purely as investments. • Fulbourn has several schemes in the pipeline, applications which have either outline or full planning permission. No further development for either housing or employment should be considered until these schemes are built and fully occupied, and their impact on the village has been assessed and understood.

Not likely to be a sustainable option for Infill Villages. Not a lot of scope for growth in Group Villages without changing character significantly, and not likely to be sustainable there either.

I am not in support of growing the villages. I do not think that the number of homes that could be provided using this method would be beneficial enough to take on the challenges of this option. I think growing the villages would mean they would lose their character and I do not think that Green Belt should be developed in any circumstance so I do not see how this could be an option as presumably Green Belt would need to be used to grow villages. Plus since many villages are very poorly served by public transport I do not think that this option would be a good idea for the sake of climate change, air pollution and quality of life of those who live in the villages - traffic congestion is already terrible and really needs to be addressed urgently for the population and settlements already in and around Cambridge. It would be madness to plan more development without addressing the issues around lack of public transport that already exist.

Develop existing Village College to being community hubs again. Ensure adequate infrastructural and sustainable easy access to public transport.

We are unable to answer Q42 as it requires that the options are ranked. We do not considered that any one of these options in Q42 is likely to provide for the development needs of Greater Cambridge. Rather elements of each part of the hierarchy are likely to be required. Efficient use should be made of all areas for development, subject to design quality being maintained. Development should be located in areas where it can support maximum travel by non-car modes, close to jobs and series and along public transport corridors. That is the case whether they be urban extensions, new settlements or village growth. Some development in key village location will help support services and meet local affordable housing needs to support communities. Such an approach is not about “dispersal” it is about supporting local communities. Planned new settlements can help deliver growth in a holistic way.

Limited potential: villages should be protected from significant growth. Any growth should proportionate to the size of the village and organic/nuclear in nature. Joined-up village clusters are totally alien to South Cambridgeshire.

If people can live and work within the same village and not travel, that sounds sensible. It needs to relocate existing homes/jobs from Cambridge though, not create new growth. Growth is toxic.

Villages should facilitate enough organic growth to maintain existing services and facilities in light of decreasing average household size and provide choice in the housing market.