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

As a general principle, the Trust is opposed to the dispersal of development to villages for the reasons identified in the consultation document. See also our comments on Q 42.

• A modest scale of growth depending on the size of the village might be acceptable. This should be located within the Village Framework with priority given to housing people from the local community – see our response to Q31 • The dispersal of both employment and housing across the villages of South Cambridgeshire should be avoided, especially as such village developments are likely to become dormitories for Cambridge and reliant on car use. Whilst locally such impacts may be modest the cumulative impacts, for example on traffic, could be significant.

In a small number of infill villages, growth is needed to make the village and its services sustainable. For very many of our villages however, transport links are poor, employment is limited and growth of these villages should be limited to development within the framework and to affordable housing on exception sites.

It is hard to see how this option could achieve high sustainability standards due to the increased travel that would be contrary to the aim for net zero carbon. Small scale developments providing for local village needs will often be accommodated with no significant impacts on biodiversity or a nature recovery network, however significant growth would be unlikely to meet many sustainability tests.

Development in villages is the least sustainable growth pattern and if essential should be limited to Rural Centres and minor rural centres and new settlements.

This needs to be done with care. Some of the villages are so small that growing them to be viable means building a brand new community. Others (e.g. H&I, Cottenham etc) are large enough to be viable (but not sustainable because of lost employment) but are unlikely to improve as a result of significant growth. Above all, the villages need to be viable social mixed communities in order not to create many new problems to offset the quick solution of finding space for new homes.

• 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.

1.60 Our clients strongly believe that the growth of villages is one of the most sustainable options for the delivery of new homes to meet the existing and future needs of the Greater Cambridge area. Sites on the edges of villages can often be delivered with limited landscape impacts or loss of Green Belt function, especially where site are defined by existing landscaped boundaries. 1.61 The development of sites on the edges of villages can also help to sustain existing facilities and social infrastructure in the village as well as providing a more diverse population. 1.62 By focusing growth on the District’s most sustainable rural settlements, like Comberton, the negative impacts of in-commuting by car that are presently experienced by the area can be reduced. New residents will have greater travel options with the enhancement of the cycle route between Comberton and Cambridge that will ultimately lead to more sustainable modes of travel by new and existing residents.

1.58 Our client strongly believes that the growth of villages is one of the most sustainable options for the delivery of new homes to meet the existing and future needs of the Greater Cambridge area. Sites on the edges of villages can often be delivered with limited landscape impacts or loss of Green Belt function, especially where site are defined by existing landscaped boundaries. This has been successfully demonstrated with our client’s delivery of the site at Bennell Farm. 1.59 The development of sites on the edges of villages can also help to sustain existing facilities and social infrastructure in the village as well as providing a more diverse population. 1.60 By focusing growth on the District’s most sustainable rural settlements, like Comberton, the negative impacts of in-commuting by car that are presently experienced by the area can be reduced. New residents will have greater travel options with the enhancement of the cycle route between Comberton and Cambridge that will ultimately lead to more sustainable modes of travel by new and existing residents.

The comments made in response to question 42 are applicable here. New development in villages such as Meldreth would help to diversify the local community and support the existing services and facilities provided. New development in the villages may also create increased demand for certain services and facilities.

10.1 The emerging plan will need to strike the right balance between high growth needs and the character of what makes the area unique. Given the high level of housing need in the area it is inevitable that several villages will need to accommodate further growth. This means, amongst other things, allocating sufficient housing land for small-medium housing sites, which can deliver quickly and help distribute growth more sustainably throughout the district (para. 68 of the NPPF) and identifying opportunities for villages to grow and thrive in order to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (para. 78 of the NPPF). 10.2 This will inevitably face objection, and be difficult to support where it would result in loss of the Green Belt, and as such, we believe that the growth should be focused in the right place – i.e. those most sustainably located to benefit from proximity to jobs and services. To make it more palatable, development in these village locations should aspire to be carbon neutral, of exemplar design, and provide genuine positive effects. Residents are far more likely to support growth if it can have a positive effect on carbon emissions and be proven to not reduce public transport capacity or exacerbate localised congestion. This is only achievable in locations that can support walking/cycling to workplace, flexible working conditions, and accommodate further growth in public transport capacity – i.e. the guided busway where additional services will not create further traffic on the roads. Aspiration for zero carbon development should be enshrined in the most accessible locations as a genuine ‘exceptional’ reason to support expansion of villages in the Green Belt.

We have explained in our response to question 39 that there are exceptional circumstances to justify a review of the Green Belt, namely the evidential need for significant additional housing. It is inevitable that the growth of villages both within and outside the Green Belt will be a vital component of the spatial strategy. Village growth creates the positive opportunity to support the vitality of rural communities: Paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that "to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services." Land at Park Street, Dry Drayton would provide additional population to suport the school and the existing bus service through the village, contributing to their viablility and longevity, as well as public open space which is currently lacking. In this regard, the allocation of the site and associated increase in population would benefit the whole community in terms of the availability of alternative transport modes and the support of services and facilities within the village, such as the village hall, school and pub, along with the proposed public open space.

It is considered that the growth of villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and there is national guidance that supports this approach. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land at Beach Road in Cottenham would support the existing services and facilities in the village. Paragraph 68 acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridgeshire. Therefore, it is requested that small sized sites such as the land at Beach Road in Cottenham is allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including small sized sites that are easily deliverable. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, the promoted development at land at Beach Road in Cottenham would be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport to the services and facilities within the village. Cottenham is connected to Cambridge by frequent bus services. There is a shared use path between Cottenham and Histon. As set out in the call for sites submissions, there are no significant constraints to development at Beach Road in Cottenham. The site is not in the Green Belt. The site is within Flood Zone 1 which means it has a low probability of flooding, and the promoted development would include an appropriate drainage strategy to manage surface water drainage. The site is not located within the setting of any listed buildings or scheduled ancient monuments and is not within a designated conservation area. The Ecological Appraisal of the site demonstrated that the site is not sensitive in terms of protected habitats or species, and the promoted development would provide ecological enhancements that would ensure that a biodiversity net gain would be delivered. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been prepared for the site, which demonstrated that development can be integrated onto the site at this location and is supported from a landscape and visual perspective. Additional planting in the form of trees and hedging has been introduced along the site boundaries to provide further enclosure and to integrate the proposals into the surroundings. Any views of any future development would therefore be highly localised to the immediate setting of Beach Road and Long Drove.

Yes, if carried out sensitively. May revitalise and make them viable for more services.

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. Land off Beach Road, Cottenham is a sustainable location for development and a prime opportunity to support the village of Cottenham. The development proposals could deliver numerous tangible social, economic and environmental benefits to Cottenham and the local area, including: ● The opportunity to deliver a valuable amount of affordable housing to help meet the needs of Cottenham and the wider District; ● Locating residential development within one of the District’s largest and most sustainable villages. The site is located approximately 800m from 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 Cottenham’s local economy, including shops and services; and ● Enhancing biodiversity levels across the site and delivering on-site green infrastructure, creating a recreation and ecological asset for the village.

Southern and Regional Developments (Swavesey) consider that 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. Such housing delivery has suuported the housing delivery of the Councils and should be considered as making a materially beneficial contribution toward meeting the residential needs of the Local Plan area. This must be reflected within the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan by establishing that settlements such as Swavesey remain suitable locations and accommodate moderate levels of growth. such growth will be able to sustain existing communities whilst also representing a significant contribution to the spatial strategy. It is acknowledged that a number of these villages, such as hamletsthose established as Group Villages in Policy S/10 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan are recognised as being less sustainable locations for development. However, there remains settlements that can demonstrate enhanced sustainability credentials which are established in the South Cambridgeshire Plan as Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres. Swavesey 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 secondary school, primary school, post office, village store 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, Swavesey village benefits from a link to the guided busway which provides rapid, frequent services into Cambridge as well as connections to other settlements in the wider area and is also in close proximity to the A14. 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. It is maintained by Southern and Regional Developments (Swavesey) that the strategy in dispersing development to the villages of the Plan area should form part of a wide ranging approach. 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 be included within the Plan preparation process, given the historical success in this approach. Summary of Comments: Southern and Regional Developments support a strategy in dispersing development to the villages.

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

There is merit in siting development along transport corridors where sites are supported by a regular public transport service and where the use of private cars can genuinely be discouraged. The extent of development along these corridors should be considered in the round alongside other constraints, particularly where these corridors extend beyond defined settlements into the countryside. The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) has instructed the preparation of a public transport study which will explore how to improve journey times into the city from the east for public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists. One of the key areas of study will include the Cambridge Airport site. The GCP is developing the eastern corridor to form the first phase of the CAM. The Cambridge East site would align with this study and the proposals for an eastern arm of the CAM. The eastern access proposals and growth strategy are explicitly linked, i.e. neither element can come forward without the other.

Villages should be allowed to grow in a sustainable way. They are places where people work and live. If villages are prevented from growing then the vitality of the village may be harmed, for example existing shops and pubs are more likely to close, which would lead to existing residents having to travel further to access services and facilities to meet their day-to-day needs.

The adopted spatial strategy of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan appropriately recognises the opportunity and potential that exists at the villages within 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. European Property Ventures (Cambridgeshire) contend that this recognitions 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 being 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 Centre, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages. It is considered that Group Villages, such as Oakington, represent sustainable locations for growth where it can be established that appropriate and suitable sites are identifiable. The site under the control of European Property Ventures at Dry Drayton Road, Oakington is a sustainable location for development. It is within walking distance of a number of services and amenities available in the village, including a primary school, public house and convenience store. Furthermore, Oakington is located close to Cambridge city and therefore benefits from a frequent bus service which connects the village to the city centre, half hourly. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway also passes to the north of the village, which also provides high frequency rapid bus links into Cambridge every 2 to 5 minutes. These are considerations which support the overall sustainability of Oakington and materially support its position as a more appropriate location for new development than is established within the current spatial strategy. The site and the village therefore should be duly considered as a location for new residential development within the emerging Greater Cambridge Plan. It is acknowledged that development in villages such as Oakington must be implemented carefully and in a way that preserves their rural character and does not harm the capacity of infrastructure locally. The site south of Dry Drayton Road at Oakington is able to provide a level of development that would be approaite to Oakington and support the delivery of housing. It is recognised 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. Summary of Comments: European Property Ventures(Cambridgeshire) support a strategy in dispersing development to the villages, alongside consideration of other approaches.

This question duplicates previous questions.

- The responses to Q 39, 40 and 41 apply Answer to Q39 - We disagree strongly with idea of removing land from the Green Belt. Improving the sustainability of travel is better since it benefits of the existing population and just the planned new homes. Answer to Q40 - The approach should take into account the circumstances of the village such as its size, whether or not it is in the Green Belt and the wishes of the existing community. Answer to Q41 - The approach should take into account the circumstances of the village such as its size, whether or not it is in the Green Belt, its conservation status, the green space contribution of the sites in question and the wishes of the existing community.

2.11 Summary Answer: The emerging plan will need to strike the right balance between high growth needs and the character of what makes the area unique. Given the high level of housing need in the area it is inevitable that several villages will need to accommodate further growth. This means, amongst other things, allocating sufficient housing land for small-medium housing sites, which can deliver quickly and help distribute growth more sustainably throughout the district (para. 68 of the NPPF) and identifying opportunities for villages to grow and thrive in order to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (para. 78 of the NPPF). 2.13 In responding to questions 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 47 and 48, it is important to note that paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It goes on to promote planning policies that identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. 2.14 Frameworks have been defined to take account of the present extent of the built-up area and planned development, but the level of planned development has been notably limited by the application of the settlement hierarchy (Policies S/7 - S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018) and the principle that development can only occur within the settlement framework boundary. This is evident in the categorisation of South Cambridgeshire’s ‘Group’ or ‘Infill’ villages and the tightly drawn settlement boundaries, which have created little room for villages to grow. Examples of this are provided in the appended Barton Willmore Housing Delivery Study (2020). 2.15 Taking into account future requirements for housing land supply and housing affordability, it is clear that current settlement boundaries will need to flex in order to accommodate further growth in sustainable locations. As previously mentioned, the settlement hierarchy has defined the sustainability of each village as determinate rather than giving merit to its transformative potential through sustainable development. We are not arguing here for a removal of the settlement hierarchy, but a recalibration measured against levels of services and facilities in each settlement and potential sustainability enhancing measures such as: • Transport improvements that better connect villages to surrounding larger settlements, employment areas or service centres; • Local transport enhancements that provide more sustainable travel options to services and facilities and/or ease of access for satellite villages surrounding larger or better served settlements e.g. new footpaths/cycleways, real time bus stops; • Increasing capacity of local community facilities to better serve local needs; • Provision of new community services and facilities e.g. play areas, new business incubators; • New housing that provides different sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different groups in the community and supports a greater demographic mix; • Provision of much needed affordable housing; • Local employment generation; • New or enhanced access to public open space and recreation (i.e. health and wellbeing gains); and • Net gain in biodiversity and opportunities to ‘scale-up’ local green infrastructure networks. 2.16 The above factors present scope to expand village populations in a sustainable way; the degree of expansion will need to be scored against the level of existing and potential sustainability levels. Not all village settlements will be equal in this regard and therefore a scoping exercise will be required to assess each settlement and preferably define an extent of housing supply matched with new housing land allocations. 2.17 Local communities may have a particular view on the needs of their village or where growth opportunities are best located. Similar to the emerging Bedford Local Plan, housing policy could give the option to local communities to steer allocated growth through a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order (Regulation 16), or if one has not been submitted the Council can consider the need to allocate additional sites. 2.18 There are further benefits to consider through appropriate expansion of rural settlements. Housing sites in rural areas tend to be small to medium in size, which in turn have shorter delivery times than larger sites. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites’ (NLP, 2018) shows that the lead-in time for sites of less than 500 homes take 1.7-1.8 years to deliver the first dwelling after receiving detailed planning permission, whereas larger sites of 2000+ homes take much longer (2.9 years).

Summary: Support for a strategy that includes growth in villages, particularly in locations with good existing or proposed public transport/cycling Full comment: While villages may not be the entire focus for all growth, it is critical that they play a significant contribution to the overall mix of development. Moreover, it is important to understand that there are several different types of villages within the Greater Cambridge area ranging from large villages with a large range of shops, and services to smaller villages with fewer facilities. The level of growth being attributed to each settlement should take into account a wide range of factors and it is important that the role of new development, which is rightly identified in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan as an advantage, should not be underplayed or underestimated. Growth in villages is essential to enable them to grow, to support existing services and infrastructure such as existing public transport, schools, and shops. It should also be noted that some of the challenges identified within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan may not necessarily be applicable to all villages. For example, under section 5.3.3 of the Plan, it identifies that spreading homes to villages 'Can result in increased commuting by car, and travel to access…services and facilities, particularly if the village is away from main transport corridors'. In this instance, my client's site at land west of Station Road, is located within close proiximity to shops, services, and facilities including a primary school, together with regular bus services to major employment locations such as Capital Park, Tesco, Biomedical Campus/Addenbrookes Hospital, the railway station area, and the historic city centre

Some growth at villages can help sustain existing communities. The take-up of neighbourhood planning has been poor with only one made Neighbourhood Plan within South Cambridgeshire at the time of writing. As a result, this planning tool has not been as successful in delivering localised non-strategic growth to date. With only 18 other designated NP areas and little progress on each, there can be little or no reliance upon NP’s as a source of housing land supply during the plan period. Many villages have been identified by planning inspectors on appeal as being sustainable locations for proportionate growth. Para 31 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plans consider relevant market signals. There is a known affordability issue within rural South Cambridgeshire area and the plan must look to positively address this issue. Local Housing Need is derived across the whole area, and the villages also need a sufficient mix of market and affordable homes to ‘support vibrant rural communities.’ We consider there should be a more proactive and positive plan that provides more clarity for local communities and meets the development needs of villages in a sustainable manner. This is considered to be more in keeping with the thrust of the NPPF to boost the supply of housing and maintain a rolling 5-year supply of suitable housing sites throughout the lifetime of the plan. We consider that a balanced portfolio of housing sites in terms of geography, quantum and tenure is essential to the success of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. To deliver the economic growthscenario, there is a need to utilise different approaches of delivery, such as proportionate extensions to sustainable villages as well as the creation of new settlements. It is recognised that the contributions additional housing can make are unlikely to impact upon improving services and facilities unless significant growth is planned. We do consider there is an option to deliver a new community alongside a smaller village where it will benefit from nationally led and localised infrastructure plans. Croxton is a good example of a small hamlet that has no facilities but is ideally located along a key transport corridor and could be well-connected to larger service centres through future infrastructure projects. Additional housing that includes new facilities can be provided on land between the existing and new A428 routes and could provide a unique opportunity to create a new settlement that does not directly conflict with the existing character and can deliver sustainable growth in the rural area.

2.1 Prioritising the growth of the local villages would represent a sustainable approach to the strategic development of the area. Many of the villages have some shops, employment opportunities and social infrastructure. However, due to economies of scale, the viability of local services and facilities is being marginalised by the growth of the larger regional and sub regional settlements such as the city of Cambridge. Whilst it does represent a sustainable form of development to encourage higher density development in areas that have greatest access to public transport and shops and jobs, focussing purely on this as a strategy will mean that the existing villages will be unable to sustain themselves. They will effectively become dormitory settlements, where people are required to travel to meet their shopping and employment needs and to access heath and social facilities. This will place additional pressure on the infrastructure of the existing larger settlements, but also encourage traffic movements, particularly in the private car, out of the villages. 2.2 Because of the historic restrictions on development within the Green Belt and countryside in the Plan area, this has meant that whilst the environmental objectives of preserving the countryside and Green Belt has been achieved, and that the countryside is largely free from encroachment and settlements have not merged together, it has meant that the ability of smaller settlements to sustain themselves with shops, jobs and services, used by local residents, has been constrained. 2.3 As a result, there needs to be a balance between the development of the major settlement (Cambridge) and development in the surrounding settlements. By utilising the existing areas within villages and identifying land adjoining villages that would allow for some growth without resulting in a significant compromise of the countryside, the aims of; − reducing the need to travel by private car, − bringing wider benefits to existing communities in terms of access to services, shop and facilities, allowing jobs growth in villages to help sustain local services and sustain vibrant communities, − reducing the distance and journey time between homes and jobs, and − encouraging residents to use sustainable transport modes to get to work resulting in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved.

3.39 The Local Plan should seek to allocate a component of its housing needs towards growth at existing villages. Development within existing villages can help to sustain existing facilities and deliver new facilities and infrastructure, support shops and business uses and meet both the market and affordable housing needs of the local community. Village growth should involve public consultation to ensure development proposals address local need.

CUHP does not feel it appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the development strategy, but support the findings from the 2018 Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER). This concluded that, “a dispersal strategy, which seeks to relocate homes and businesses away from city centres is unlikely to be successful, as it is ‘agglomeration’ – the desire to be near other companies – that attracts companies to the area. Other options, such as densification, fringe growth, and transport corridors all have potential benefits, and should be pursued to an extent, though none should be taken to its extreme.” Any expansion to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) in the medium to long term may require policies supporting densification of the existing campus (both built and subject to extant consents under CBC Phase 1 and 2) and/or would need to be proximate to the existing campus, which may require a further Green Belt review. We would recommend that housing is sited in accessible locations to the campus, by walking, cycling and public transport (maximum journey time of 40-50 minutes). Potentially, the most sustainable travel patterns, with associated benefits for air quality, congestion and quality of life, could be achieved through an appropriate review of the Green Belt boundaries, as part of a blended development strategy. This could include development on the edge of Cambridge and adjoining villages well served by public transport. A CBC Strategy Group with representation from all campus organisations has agreed to develop a Vision 2050 for the CBC. Subject to ratification by the CBC Strategy Group, this will be shared with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service by summer 2020 to define the extent, scale and location of development proposed throughout the timescale of the next Local Plan, and the anticipated number of jobs to be supported by the CBC by 2050. CUHP is committed to working with the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to develop an appropriate policy framework to guide the future development of the CBC.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Sawston, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors with extensive public transport available 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. Therefore, it is considered that land on the edge of villages and within the Green Belt, such as Sawston, should also be considered as options to meet development needs. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of planmaking. 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. This submission is supported by a Transport Technical Note which confirmed that there are a wide range of day-to-day local services and facilities that would be available to future residents of the Mill Lane Site, Sawston which can be accessed via sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport. This note also emphasises that there are several large employment sites located in the surrounding area including the Wellcome Genome Campus, Granta Park and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which are within a comfortable cycling distance for future residents of the Mill Lane Site. Additionally, the Site’s location just across the A1301 from the Vision Centre and Huawei’s emerging business and research campus is within a short 5 or 10 minute walking distance and a few minutes cycling distance. In addition to the walking and cycling opportunities identified above the submitted Transport Technical Note also highlights the extensive existing public transport access from the Mill Lane Site, Sawston. The Site is located in close proximity to bus stops which provide regular services to a range of destinations including Cambridge. Whittlesford Parkway Railway Station and Shelford Railway station are both less than 4km away and within an acceptable cycling distance and can be reached via Sustrans National Cycle Route. Train services from Whittlesford Parkway Station and Shelford Station serve destinations including Cambridge, Bishop’s Stortford and London Liverpool Street. Shelford Railway Station is also located approximately 3.3km to the north of the site and is also within an acceptable cycling distance and provides access to the same services that are Available from Whittlesford Parkway Station. In addition, Cambridge Railway Station could be accessed from the Mill Lane Site via cycle and provides additional services to London Kings Cross, Ely, Norwich and Stansted Airport. Therefore, Sawston is the focus for a number of proposed and potential transport infrastructure projects, and development along transport corridors should also be considered as an option to meet development needs. 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. As previously set out, the Mill Lane Site, Sawston is owned by NW Bio who are working together with Advent BioServies to develop the Vision Centre which is just across the A1301 (about 5 or 10 minutes’ walk) from the proposed residential site, on the Mill Lane Site. The Vision Centre is an advanced manufacturing facility that will produce cell therapy products for the UK and for export to the European Union and worldwide. The development of the Vision Centre will involve the creation of up to 450 new high-value jobs across a wide range of skill levels in phases over the next few years. A key factor which will affect the pace at which personnel can be hired for these jobs will be the availability of housing nearby to the Vision Centre. A proportion of Vision Centre employees will have to live close to the site because producing and managing living cell products requires unpredictable and varied hours (e.g. when tissues are received from hospitals for processing at any time of the day or evening). The jobs at the Vision Centre will be for a range of employees, from school leavers through to PhD level, with a private apprenticeship programme also under development. This will result in increased employment and learning opportunities within Sawston and South Cambridgeshire as a whole which will have benefits for social inclusion. The ability of other employees of the Vision Centre to live in close proximity to the site will also have clear benefits for their health and well-being by avoiding the need for significant commuting and promoting opportunities for active forms of travel such as walking and cycling. The residential development of the Mill Lane Site, Sawston would also provide additional housing that is much needed for nearby surrounding employment sites, including existing sites to the east and north of Sawston; Huawei’s emerging business and research campus at the former Spicers site; Granta Park; Cambridge Biomedical Campus; and the expanding Wellcome Genome Campus. The site is also in a location with excellent public transport access and good accessibility by a 10 or 15 minute walk or short cycle ride into Sawston to existing services and facilities including nurseries, schools, doctors, dentists, pharmacy, opticians, sports centre, pubs, convenience stores, hairdressers and beauticians. Having all of these services and facilities within close proximity of the Site will allow future occupants to access these services using sustainable travel modes and will assist the development, and its occupants, in integrating into the wider Sawston community.

Growing villages like Comberton with a good range of facilities, services, and good and improving accessibility should be part of the development strategy.