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

We support this Option. It is vital that a spatial strategy is adopted which allows villages to expand and as a result, will enable local services and infrastructure to be enhanced. As a consequence, this will result in locations becoming more sustainable. As set out in our response to Question 40, the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and in particular Policy S/10 does not allow Group Villages like Orwell to grow beyond the development framework – this cannot be considered sound. We therefore suggest a strategy is adopted which allows for villages to grow and thrive by providing opportunities for sustainable expansion alongside supporting and enhancing local infrastructure. Such a strategy will then accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’).

Please refer to the response to question 42

Potentially might lead to improved services within the village (e.g. shops, schools) that would remove some of the need to travel to Cambridge.

Sprawl of development around our larger villages can be a real problem as it reinforces two negative impacts: - incremental development does not contribute to the vibrancy of the village. Residents remote from the village centre need to use their cars and are then liable to go further afield rather than use local facilities. New developments built more than 20 minutes walk from the village centre are too remote). - where residents in the remote new developments do access village facilities, they use cars to do so. The village centres are not designed to support large scale car parking which causes congestion. It just does not work and development of new housing in Cottenham has expanded to the point that these effects are being felt and we have created new developments that are entirely car dependent. Sprawl also reduces social cohesion and creates "islands" of unconnected residents that are not integrated into the life of the community. The High Street is not a pleasant place despite the good shops and facilities located there - there is too much traffic and no space for "social interaction". The answer is a more creative approach to village centres that resets the priorities away from cars to pedestrians and cyclists, creating safe areas that would build a greater sense of community and enable more entertainment and service oriented businesses to flourish. The alternative to fringe development of our villages is greater densification of small scale developments or even the through redevelopment of existing lower density housing towards the centre of the village. This is a better alternative and would be particularly suitable for older people who are more dependent on easy access to the core facilities in the village. Greater densification of sites close to the village centre (or densification of existing sites through redevelopment) is much more preferable to fringe development. It offers a real prospect of developing pedestrian and cycle usage for short journeys within the village core and for a village like Cottenham could significantly re-establish the sense of a village core which is being lost. Such policies also need to be associated with a more creative approach to the village centre to deprioritise cars through measures such as pedestrianisation, low speed zones, wider pavements, more cycle parking, etc.

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 the current settlement hierarchy 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. Linton; • Those villages with a healthy level of services and facilities e.g. secondary schools – e.g. Linton; • Those located on existing transport corridors including public transport e.g. Linton; and • Those located on proposed transport corridors and hubs - e.g. Linton. In light of the above, villages such as Linton to the south of the city would be a very sustainable location for new development. Linton is a sustainable village with ample existing key services, including: • Supermarket; • Doctors’ Surgery; • Pharmacy; • Veterinary Surgery; • Post Office; • Bakeries; • Linton Village College; • Linton CE Infant School; • Linton Heights Junior School; • Linton Village College Adult Learning; • Granta School; • Playing Fields; • Linton Community Sports Centre; • Numerous Shops; • Restaurants and cafes; • Public House; • Village Hall; • Guest Houses; • Linton Zoo; • Public Parks; • Nursing and Retirement Living homes; and • Church. In addition, Linton is already in close proximity to existing and planned employment such as: • Granta Park – Located 7.5 km from the site and is accessible by car (8-10mins), by the no.13/13A bus (15mins) and by bike (40mins). Granta Park employs in excess of 2,000 people and has further planning permission to expand. • Babraham Research Campus – Located 10km from the site which is accessible by car (12-15mins), by the no.13/13A bus (15mins) 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 (40mins). This campus also offers a private bus service from Cambridgeshire villages including Linton to and from the campus. Furthermore, Wellcome has submitted a planning application 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 15km from the site which is accessible by car (15-20mins), by the no.13/13A bus (40mins) and by bike (45mins). Furthermore, as part of the Cambridge South East Transport - Better Public Transport Project, a new Linton to Cambridge “greenway” is planned. The Linton Greenway is planned to run along the former Haverhill to Cambridge railway would link Linton to Granta Park, Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambridge City. In addition, a rural travel hub to serve the greenway is proposed to be located between Bartlow Road and the A1307, to the south of the site put forward for residential development south of Horseheath Road (north of Bartlow Road). In essence, Linton is in a unique position in that at present it has 3,500 jobs within close proximity, 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 (e.g. 100 or more dwellings) of a village such as Linton, particularity sites within close proximity of the proposed greenway transport hub, should be strongly encouraged.

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 at 13 Newton Road, Little Shelford 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.

From the above statement one would come to the conclusion that villages have not had any growth for many many years. From knowledge of the area which is extensive most service villages have seen some form of housing growth and in a sustainable manner. What has not happened is for this land supply resource to provide a greater contribution to the housing supply as allocations within the local plans. Indeed the statements made in paragraph 5.3,5 undeplay the advantages at the same time as overstate the challenges. With regard to the advantages is does not give credit to the role played by new housing in rural settlements to the local economy and adding to the vibrancy of the community. It does not recognise the benefits of meeting local housing need with the ability to increase deficient tenures and access to decent homes that are currently unavailable. Regarding challenges whilst it is accepted it could increase out commuting it does not recoginse that it could be balanced by incommuting of those local people that have had to move where housing is unavailable in the particlar village or that is affordable. There is no consideration of the number of economically active persons that now either work from home, have businesses or employment which offers flexible working which does not require daily commutes or during peak periods. It cannot be said that small housing schemes to not significantly contribute to improvements to infrastructure. Indeed, small developments are more likely to deliver very local improvements to the scale of the deficit. If there is a CIL Tarrif then each home built will contribute to the District Infrastructure requirement which from experience is not spent locally and therefore provides no benefit for the village where development has taken place. IE Benefits to local infrastructure is wholly linked to improvements required with the new development works. Impact on the character of any location needs to be considered which is true for any development within the District. Indeed rather than viewing new development as a negative it is an opportunity to enhance and offer a different experience as has been the case for centuries as any settlement evolves. Green Belt policy restricts very few of the district villages. The new Plan offers the opportunity to review the planning principles as to why the GB policy was applied originally. It should not be viewed as a burden but an opportunity to consider if sustainable development can be carried out to meet the local housing need and offer sites that would not have been considered in the previous iterations of the local plan.

Yes see comments above; via exception sites if they are sustainable already i.e. have infrastructure and facilities to accommodate growth, without generating excess commuting traffic.

Villages must be served by reliable, punctual public transport, and with cycle and walking infrastructure connecting to nearby villages/Cambridge.

Modest growth of villages, with their consent via Neighbourhood Plans, is acceptable.

Assessment of village facilities should be up to date and have regard for existing capacity and future demand likely to arise from existing development by natural growth. Site should not be located on the edges of villages remote from the centre and access to essential services. Urbanistaion of rural communities should be avoided.. Expansion of existing villages will seldom be appropriate..

If appropriately and sensitively done and doesn’t just cause massive congestion and destruction of nature

They will cease to become villages if they grow too much more!

Should be considered; consult the people in the villages.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Sawston, 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 Sawston, 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 north of Common Lane 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 north of Common Lane in Sawston 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, Sawston 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, and planned improvements to walking and cycling routes proposed by Greater Cambridge Partnership. As set out in the call for site submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land north of Common Lane in Sawston. The parts of the site that contain buildings, the outdoor riding arenas, and areas of hardstanding would fall within the definition of previously developed land. There are no heritage assets that would be affected by development at the site. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 which means it has a low probability of flooding. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt, and could be released to meet the needs for housing and affordable housing. The promoted development would include green infrastructure and strategic landscaping to avoid impacts on landscape character and important views, and to enhance the setting of the village. As such, parts of the promoted development would remain open. Overall, Sawston 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. Orwell contains a primary school, village store including a post office, a public house, a hairdresser, a village hall, church hall, recreation facilities and a mobile library service. There is a limited bus service to Cambridge. The promoted development at land off Leaden Hill in Orwell 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 small sized sites such as land off Leaden Hill in Orwell are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including small sites that are easily deliverable. As set out in the call for sites submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land off Leaden Hill in Orwell. The trees and hedges on the site that contribute to the landscape character would be retained as part of the promoted development, and additional planting would be provided to protect and enhance that character.

As stated, many villages located within and adjoining the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable in their own right, with local services and good public transport facilities. As such, several villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable for the development of both jobs and homes, including the adjoining large village of Great Chesterford. Therefore the new Local Plan should look to allocate appropriate levels of future housing growth to the edges of the most sustainable villages, particularly those connected by rail, as part of an overall balanced spatial strategy. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF sets out that ‘the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.’ As such there is national policy encouragement for the growth of villages. Paragraph 78 adds that ‘planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’.

This should be an integral approach to housing growth. See our comments under the Options for Growth.

I think it can be done and makes sense but tends to be done badly. I don’t think it’s impossible to do it better but more communication, more sensitivity, receptiveness to spending money on those most impacted by the development and by depriving existing residents access to health and schools you can destroy a community.

The expansion of existing villages has an important role to play in the delivery of new homes and infrastructure in the short term, contributing positively to the Councils’ five-year housing land supply and providing significant benefits to existing communities. Papworth Everard is a key example of an existing village that has a good range of employment opportunities, facilities and services; and is well positioned to take full advantage of infrastructure improvements. Nearby Cambourne is also a well-established, thriving, vibrant and sustainable new settlement offering an array of services and facilities, including retail, education, leisure, and a significant amount of employment. Experience suggests that delays can occur in delivering large scale ambitious schemes, such as standalone new settlements. Large scale new settlements and urban extensions by their very nature require significant upfront infrastructure before dwellings can be delivered on site. While new settlements and urban extensions will no doubt form an important component of the spatial strategy in the period to 2050, it is equally important that the spatial strategy does not rely entirely upon new homes from these sources. In order to achieve the economic objectives for the area it is essential that a broad range of sites are available that can deliver in the short, medium and long terms. Opportunities to deliver short term housing that can also facilitate notable improvements in infrastructure for more rural communities should also be fully explored. At this stage in the plan-making process it is critical that the Councils do not disregard the opportunities presented via the expansion of existing villages that contain a good range of existing facilities and services. The position of Crow’s Nest Farm to the south of Papworth Everard means that new homes can be delivered in the short term, contributing positively to housing supply in Greater Cambridge, supported by existing and enhanced local infrastructure. This Vision Document illustrates how an early phase of new homes could come forward in a sustainable and logical way, to the benefit of the local community; whilst remaining an important element of the long-term growth ambitions for the area.

The Local Plan should seek to allocate a component of its housing needs towards growth at existing villages. Sustainable development in rural areas is supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. However, growth at villages should be in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 9.9 Land to the west of Cambridge Road, Melbourn has been found by SCDC to be a sustainable location for development and it is considered that it is a prime opportunity to grow the village of Melbourn. The development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to Melbourn and the local area, including: ● Delivery of affordable housing, including an element of build to rent. This would allow people to up scale and downsize subject to their needs over time whilst also meeting affordable housing need within the District; ● Locating residential development adjacent to one of the village’s largest employment sites, Melbourn Science Park. Melbourn Science Park has recently been granted permission for a substantial extension and provides a unique employment source which is of great importance to Melbourn and the surrounding area. The development would provide people with the opportunity of living and working in the same village and encourage sustainable modes of transport; ● The delivery of a walking route which is easily accessible to current and future residents and employees of the village. It will create a new recreation asset for the village and provide a walking opportunity for those that may have otherwise considered the need to travel to SSSIs for that activity, therefore protecting nearby SSSI’s from increased recreational pressure; ● The delivery of a pedestrian route from the West of the site along ‘the Drift’ which links to Moat Lane. This will provide new residents with enhanced pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Science Park and the Melbourn High Street, encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport; and ● Supporting Melbourn’s economy, including local shops and services. The Economic Benefits Statement submitted with the outline application, found that there would also be a significant and positive impact upon Melbourn's economy with residents of the new development supporting existing local shops and services within the village. This benefit is recognised in the Delegation Report at page 30. As a result of the proposed development, approximately £248,000 per annum is expected to be spent at local shops and services, potentially supporting an additional three jobs.

Residential growth in villages is supported. The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) recognises that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (paragraph 78). Additional development in villages will help to sustain the available services by maintaining population numbers. These residential schemes will propose additional households, all of which can use the local services, facilities, clubs and societies within the village resulting in greater levels of patronage and custom. This will support the ongoing provision, vitality and viability of these services. 13.2 The provision of new housing also has the ability to provide opportunities to create a more balanced local population by providing opportunities for young people to stay in the community they grew up in or for older people seeking to move within the community. 13.3 The site at Long Lane, Fowlmere has the ability to provide sustainable development in an existing rural village which has a range of facilities and services. The provision of additional development will help to support these services in future years. 13.4 Fowlmere is a settlement with a population of approximately 1,200 located approximately 14.5 km southwest of the city of Cambridge. The village is considered linear, stretching for approximately 1.5 km along the Long Lane and London Road. The oldest part of the village is situated within the Conservation Area in the centre of Fowlmere from which subsequent development has been built out from. 13.5 The village possesses a range of services capable of supporting the everyday life of residents and also benefits from its proximity to nearby shops and amenities within other towns and villages, in particular Melbourn and Royston. Those local services within Fowlmere include a primary school, public house, restaurant, a village hall and recreation ground. All these facilities are within a 900m radius of the site and can be accessed via well maintained public footpaths. The site is well related to the settlement and is considered to be a logical extension to the built-up development. 13.6 Other services such as GP surgeries, post offices, train stations, secondary schools, retail, entertainment and cultural facilities are available in the neighbouring villages of Melbourn, Meldreth and the town of Royston. Even greater service provision can also be found in the city of Cambridge. 13.7 Public transport services include regular buses on A2B route 31 between Barley and Cambridge. There are 5 inbound and 6 outbound services operating each day including at peak commuting times. Owing to Fowlmere’s location near to the Great Northern Mainline, connections are available at Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton for Thameslink and Great Northern services between Kings Lynn and London Kings Cross. The aforementioned bus route also stops in Great Shelford another train station on the mainline. These represent realistic travel options in the rural area and will allow residents to access many day-to-day services and employment in line with Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which acknowledges that transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas. 13.8 The growth of villages in the Greater Cambridge Plan is supported and it is considered that the site at Long Lane, Fowlmere should be allocated for residential development to assist the Council in their housing delivery and in achieving the objectives of the Local Plan.

The adopted spatial strategy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan appropriately recognises the opportunity and potential that exists at the villages of the District to accommodate strategically significant numbers of housing which can make a materially beneficial impact on meeting the residential needs of the Local Plan area. This should be reflected within the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan by establishing that these settlements remain suitable locations to accommodate moderate levels of growth which can represent a major component of the spatial strategy and between them, deliver a substantial number of homes to meet the objectively identified need of the Plan area. It is understood that a number of these villages, such as those established as Group Villages in Policy S/10 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan are recognised as less sustainable locations for development and therefore not preferable to accommodate new growth. However, there remains other settlements that can demonstrate enhanced sustainability credentials which are established in the South Cambridgeshire Plan as Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres. Willingham is regarded as a Minor Rural Centre in the adopted settlement hierarchy and is a preferable and suitable location to accommodate new residential allocations. The village itself benefits from an established service base that is within walking distance from the site. These include a primary school, public houses and medical centre which demonstrate that the village provides a significant range of facilities that reduces the need to travel out of the village to source such services. Furthermore, the village benefits from bus links into Cambridge as well as connections to other settlements in the wider area. This should be recognised within the emerging Local Plan, specifically the spatial strategy that needs to re-assess the status of these villages as sustainable and suitable settlements to accommodate moderate levels of residential growth. Through due recognition of the sustainabilty of Willingham following a robust review of the spatial strategy and the settlement hierarchy, the development potential of sustainable sites such as at Fen End, Willingham, can be realised. It is maintained that the strategy in dispersing development to the villages of the Plan area cannot demonstrate a sustainable spatial strategy alone. Identification of the suitable sites at the villages should represent an element of a comprehensive strategy that includes other approaches to achieve the requisite level of growth that meets the identified demand of the Plan area. The consideration of the development dispersal to the villages should be included within the Plan preparation process, given the historical success in this approach. Supporting Information - Dispersal of development to the villages within South Cambridgeshire is supported as an appropriate approach for the new Plan.

8.8 The Local Plan should seek to allocate a component of its housing needs towards growth at existing villages. Sustainable development in rural areas is supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. However, growth at villages should be in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 8.9 Land at Fishers Lane, Orwell is a sustainable location for development and an opportunity to support the village of Orwell. The development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to Orwell and the local area, including: ● The opportunity to deliver a valuable amount of affordable housing, including an element of build to rent, to help meet the needs of Orwell and the wider District; ● Locating residential development within a sustainable location, in close proximity to the village store, post office, pub, primary school, employment opportunities and bus stops offering services to Cambridge, encouraging residents to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to these facilities. The site is also located approximately 3.5km from Shepreth station, which is within cycling distance, encouraging residents to travel via sustainable modes using existing infrastructure; ● The opportunity to deliver a substantial amount of open space that would be available to new and existing residents. In addition, the site could accommodate areas for children’s play space and allotments. The open space could be configured in a manner to provide an extension of the Local Green Space which lies adjacent to the site's eastern boundary. As a new recreation asset, the site could also alleviate recreation pressures on the nearby SSSI; ● Supporting Orwell’s economy, including local shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site. The site is predominantly agricultural land and can currently be considered to be of low ecological value.

8.7 The Local Plan should seek to allocate a component of its housing needs towards growth at existing villages. Sustainable development in rural areas is supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. However, growth at villages should be in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 8.8 Land south of Hattons Road, Longstanton is considered to be a sustainable location for development and a prime opportunity to grow the village of Longstanton. The development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to Longstanton and the local area, including: ● The opportunity to deliver a substantial amount of affordable housing to help meet the needs of Longstanton and the wider District, including the potential to possibly deliver an element of custom and self-build; ● Locating residential development in a sustainable location, within close proximity to existing and proposed services, facilities, infrastructure and employment opportunities. The site is located approximately 150m from the village High Street, located adjacent to allocations for employment development and an extension to the recreation ground and is well within cycling distance of the Longstanton Park and Ride. The site is therefore well placed for future residents to be able to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to meet their daily needs; ● A landowner who wishes to work with the community in order to shape a proposal which meets the needs of and can provide wider benefits to the village; ● Delivery of a substantial amount of open space which would be accessible to new and existing residents and would provide connectivity with the allocated recreation ground extension; ● Supporting Longstanton’s economy, including local shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site. The site is predominantly agricultural land and can currently be considered to be of low ecological value. The proposals present an opportunity to deliver a biodiversity net gain of at least 10%.

The adopted spatial strategy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan appropriately recognises the opportunity and potential that exists at the villages of the District to accommodate strategically significant numbers of housing which can make a materially beneficial impact on meeting the residential needs of the Local Plan area. This should be reflected within the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan by establishing that these settlements remain suitable locations to accommodate moderate levels of growth which can represent a major component of the spatial strategy and between them, deliver a substantial number of homes to meet the objectively identified need of the Plan area. It is understood that a number of these villages, such as those established as Group Villages in Policy S/10 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan are recognised as less sustainable locations for development and therefore not preferable to accommodate new growth. However, there remains other settlements that can demonstrate enhanced sustainability credentials which are established in the South Cambridgeshire Plan as Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres. In particular, Rural Centres are recognised as demonstrating the most sustainable settlements within the District due to their established and wide range of services available for the use of village residents. This includes, but is not limited to, a primary and secondary schools, medical facilities, community facilities and retail outlets. Cottenham benefits from such amenities and therefore reduces the need for residents to travel outside the village to meet their everyday needs. As such, the emerging spatial strategy of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan needs to maintain this recognition, to both support the viability of this service base but also as an appropriate component of the new strategy that can ensure deliverable housing numbers to meet the identified need of the new Plan period. Although it is considered that delivery of sites as sustainable villages alone will not deliver sufficient numbers to meet the need of the new Plan, allocating sites at settlements such as Cottenham demonstrates an appropriate and deliverable approach to the new spatial strategy which will go a significant distance in satisfying the strategic housing need of the Plan area. However, it is maintained that the strategy in dispersing development to the villages of the Plan area cannot demonstrate a sustainable spatial strategy alone. Identification of the suitable sites at the villages should represent an element of a comprehensive strategy that includes other approaches to achieve the requisite level of growth that meets the identified demand of the Plan area. As such, the consideration of development at the villages of the Plan area should not preclude the consideration of other possible avenues, such as new settlements or development at the fringes of Cambridge city. Notwithstanding that, the consideration of the development dispersal to the villages should not be omitted from the Plan preparation process, given the historical success there has been in implementing this approach. Summary of Comments: Support is given to a strategy in dispersing development to the villages, alongside consideration of other approaches.

8.8 There should be more flexibility within the Local Plan to consider growing villages such as Impington and Histon, given its access to nearby services, facilities and transport links, which combined, make Impington and Histon a sustainable location for new development. 8.9 Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. 8.10 Land to the rear of Woodcock Close and St George’s Way is a sustainable location and provides an opportunity to grow the village of Impington and Histon by allocating residential sites that are considered to be part of an appropriate spatial strategy for the district. 8.11 As stated in paragraph 3.15 of this document, it is considered that the development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to the local area, including: ● Residential development providing up to 50 dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), of an appropriate scale and form which supports, and is informed by, its village edge location. This is also compliant with the policies in the Histon and Impington Neighbourhood Plan; ● New publicly accessible open space and play space in line with local plan policy; ● Pedestrian and cycle access through the site linking to the existing network; ● Provision of green links to encourage ecological corridors and increase bio-diversity; ● Supporting Impington and Histon’s economy, including local shops and services; ● A sustainable site location with good access to the facilities and services in Impington and Histon; and ● Relocation of Hollyoaks Veterinary Surgery to purpose built premises at Bedlam Farm, Impington.

6.21 The South Cambridgeshire villages have played an important role in delivering new housing, as Figure 23 (page 75) of the Issues and Options document demonstrates: this illustrates that 35% of growth within the adopted Local Plans (2011-2031) will be in the Rural Areas of Greater Cambridge. The current trend indicates that the villages will continue to have a key role in achieving anticipated future growth. 6.22 The Issues and Options document highlights two specific advantages associated with allowing development in villages (page 87). Firstly, new development can help to sustain existing facilities and infrastructure in the village. This is relevant to a number of villages in South Cambridgeshire, where there is typically an ageing population and limited new development, restricting opportunities for the community to grow. As set out in the NPPF (paragraph 78): “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.” 6.23 Secondly, the Issues and Options document highlights that development in villages can provide for a diversity of population in the village. New housing developments will be expected to provide affordable housing in accordance with development control policy (currently set at 40%), with an appropriate mix of rented and intermediate tenures. A mix of dwelling sizes would also be required. This creates a natural mix of population, bringing greater diversity to villages that would otherwise continue to experience an ageing population. 6.24 The Issues and Options document sets out four specific challenges that development within villages may face (page 87). These are considered below with particular reference to Hardwick and the proposed allocation of land east of Cambridge Road. 6.25 The first challenge identified is that village development can result in increased commuting by car with travel required to access services and facilities, particularly if the village is away from main transport corridors. In the case of Hardwick, the village has excellent connections to Cambridge and Cambourne, with existing bus services along with pedestrian and cycle routes. The village will also benefit from improved connectivity associated with the new Cambourne-to-Cambridge public transport project, with the latest plans showing the route along St Neots Road with the potential for a stop in Hardwick, either adjacent to or very close to the Site east of Cambridge Road. It is planned that improved cycleways will be provided alongside the new public transport route, facilitating cycling into the City Centre. In addition, a new Park and Ride facility is proposed at Scotland Farm to the northwest of Hardwick. 6.26 The second challenge set out is that small sites are unlikely to significantly contribute to improvements to infrastructure. However, the Site in Hardwick provides an opportunity for a strategic-scale development which will deliver a range of local benefits to the existing village. Compared to a piecemeal approach, a planned village extension would provide a unique opportunity to provide improvements to local infrastructure, including the village’s green infrastructure. 6.27 The third challenge presented is potential impact on village character. This could be considered to include heritage, landscape and visual impact. With reference to Hardwick, these issues have been assessed with reference to the Site east of Cambridge Road. The Site lies to the north of the Conservation Area and associated historic core of the village along Main Street, with a low likelihood of adverse impacts on heritage assets. Landscape and visual assessment of the Site has identified areas where mitigation will be built into the landscaping strategy. The Site provides a unique opportunity to create a well-planned, high-quality village extension that will positively enhance the village character, promoting sustainable lifestyles and transport choices and facilitating access into the countryside. 6.28 The fourth challenge identified by the Issues and Options document is Green Belt. It acknowledges that some of the larger, better-served villages are surrounded by Green Belt. The Preliminary Green Belt Assessment undertaken by Terence O’Rourke demonstrated that the Site makes a low contribution to the Cambridge Green Belt when measured against the five Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF (paragraph134). The proposed site allocation provides an opportunity to create a new defensible boundary. 6.29 Hill and Chivers consider that a robust and thorough approach to Green Belt review is required through the Local Plan process. This should include a detailed consideration of Green Belt boundaries in Hardwick, as the village’s evolution and development has been adversely impacted by the Green Belt designation to the east. 6.30 In considering the advantages and challenges that the Issues and Options document highlights in relation to development in villages, the village of Hardwick scores well in terms of sustainability. 6.31 Directing growth to villages that are well-located and have the potential to accommodate and benefit from growth should be a key element of the Local Plan’s spatial strategy for the plan period. The planned expansion of villages such as Hardwick could provide new housing whilst also boosting the local economy, creating the critical mass for improved services and facilities which in turn will assist in rejuvenating the local community and creating an improved sense of place. This will also reduce the need to travel, promoting sustainable lifestyles and reducing the impact of development on the environment.

8.4 The Local Plan should seek to allocate a component of its housing needs towards growth at existing villages. Sustainable development in rural areas is supported under paragraph 78 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. However, growth at villages should be in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 8.5 The site is considered to be a sustainable location for development and a prime opportunity to grow the village of Impington and Histon. The development proposals could deliver tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to settlement and the local area, including: ● Residential development in the form of new family homes of an appropriate scale and form which supports, and is informed by, its village edge location; ● Locating residential development within one of the District’s largest and most sustainable villages. The site is located close to the village centre and is well placed for future residents to be able to walk and cycle, rather than travel by private car, to these facilities; ● Supporting Impington and Histon’s economy, including local shops and services; and, ● A sustainable site location with good access to the facilities and services in Impington and Histon and Cambridge City to the south.

2.45 As set out, many villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable in their own right, with local services and public transport facilities. Furthermore, a large number of villages in the area are in close proximity to the outer fringe of Cambridge. As such, several villages within the Greater Cambridge area are sustainable for the development of both jobs and homes. Therefore the new Local Plan should look to make an allocation for appropriate levels of employment and housing growth within and to the edges of villages. 2.46 Paragraph 72 of the NPPF sets out that ‘the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.’ As such there is clear national policy encouragement for the growth of villages. Paragraph 78 adds that ‘planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’. 2.47 As has been demonstrated throughout these representations, Milton is such a village that is sustainable in its own right, but is also in very close proximity to Cambridge, and in particular is very near to Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Research Park, both major employment hubs. Milton is therefore a village that is able to accommodate a reasonable amount of new employment and housing growth in order to meet the needs of the area.