I am writing to you and your cohorts on behalf of myself and other less able impacted village residents who are very surprised and concerned that land within Great Shelford and Stapleford may be allocated for housing development within another new Local Plan.

My family and I personally have been residents of Hinton Way since 2001. We have lived and worked a couple of yards from the meadow grassland within the proposed area and it has been a constant joy. This land has been lightly grazed and/or left fallow for decades, and as a result has built up significantly diverse flora and fauna, many of which are listed as having a UK conservation status of red, and as meadow have one of the highest nature ratings in the European Monitoring of Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes (EMBAL) Survey Manual 2017. To wilfully include the meadow in a plan but only include a tiny fraction of what is a huge swathe of heavily used agricultural land with between very low and rather low nature value suggests that the plan must be ill-conceived, and it certainly goes against the local planning mantra that supporting biodiversity is at its core. As a keen naturalist, I have record of a huge variety of mammals, birds, reptiles and insects that inhabit the fields, and I would very much like to see the biodiversity surveys undertaken that form the reasoning behind destroying the meadow and its inhabitants as part of this proposal, and look forward to receiving detailed guidance on this matter.

Aside from the environmental damage this plan will cause, the Green Belt that is under attack has already been considered and dismissed as unsuitable for development in the 2018 Local Plan. May I remind you of some of the previous reasons and comment that a smaller site than the one previously proposed would not mitigate against the following issues:
1. Adverse impact on the Green Belt that will change the linear character of this area of the village, resulting in backland development and encroachment into the transitional area of the fields that provide a softer edge of the village.
2. Development of the site is likely to have an adverse effect on the adjoining Conservation Area due to intensification to create a vehicular entrance.
3. Significant adverse impact on the landscape and townscape of the area, due to considerable encroachment of the built development into the strongly rolling chalk hills rising from the village edge, with a development contrary to the ribbon development character of this part of the village.
4. There is a great deal of local opposition to development of the site.
5. The site is not well located to local services and facilities.

In support of these findings, your own Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (GCGBA) report states:
1. The purpose of Green Belt is to "prevent communities merging into one", preserve "landscape that retains a strong rural character", "prevent further coalescence of settlements" and "prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another".
This proposed development lies exactly on the boundary between the parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, and will clearly contribute to the merging of the two villages into one continuous settlement - one of the many reasons why the land was rejected in 2018.
1. "The more fragile the gap the larger the potential contribution of any intervening open land".
The proposed busway at the top of the neighbouring fields must be considered when assessing this land for suitability, as if the busway is built the value of the intervening fields in distinguishing the edge of the settlements will be further increased. Similarly, were the proposed housing allocation permitted this would weaken the argument for maintaining this boundary of fields.
Please also note that as the previously rejected retirement village on the rolling chalk hills has gone to appeal, the case for reversing the prior rejection will only be strengthened if the council advocates building housing in a contiguous field.
There is no mention of either the busway, or the proposed retirement village in the Local Plan report, yet the draft Local Plan discusses both proposals of East-West Rail and the Cambridge South Station.
1. The impact of development should consider the "degree of activity from the development (e.g. by traffic generation)".
100 houses will contribute a significant increase in traffic (potentially >200 cars), in an already congested area. The houses are very likely to be sold at a premium by the developers with new residents attracted to Cambridge's many private schools which they will access for drop off/pick up by car, further exacerbating the congestion problems in the village.

Additional to the GCGBA, we do not understand the motivation behind looking at this site again and are very concerned about the responses received from the Planning Officer when questioned about this:
1. "We need to explore development needs and opportunities afresh for each plan review, and consider what is the appropriate development strategy".
This is not relevant as there must be "exceptional circumstances" for release of Green Belt land. Those are not exceptional circumstances as has been proven in case law (Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283, finding "Preparing a new local plan is not, of itself, an exceptional circumstance justifying alteration to a green belt boundary").
1. "Development will impact on Green Belt purposes".
Your own Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (GCGBA) report states the impact on Green Belt of use of this parcel of land as 'Moderate-High', and the 2018 Local Plan noted that due to release of Green Belt land for the current adopted plan, the value of remaining Green Belt is increased.
1. "The site included in the First Proposals is at a rural centre which has a range of services."
Shelford and Staplefords services are already recognised to be stretched and over-subscribed, problems that would only be exacerbated by the proposed large development.
1. "Access to the south provides suitable access to serve the number of dwellings proposed".
This appears to be founded on the Fire Authority assessment, that requires a development of greater than 100 houses to have two access points even though suitability for fire access does not equate to suitable access. As your own surveys will be well aware, Mingle Lane is a narrow 20 mph restricted lane and accessed either through particularly tight roads through the conservation area, or from Hinton Way, and is not suitable for any more houses and resultant traffic. Furthermore, the significant traffic increase onto Hinton Way will exacerbate congestion issues from vehicles queuing for the railway crossing, which now regularly reach up past the proposed land boundary behind Hinton Way.
1. "The site provides an opportunity for rounding off and creation of a new village edge".
This is possibly the most illuminating comment, as we regard it as more suited to a developer than a planning officer. It is clear that there is obviously considerable financial benefit to developers from building on this site with it being in one of the more sought after villages near to Cambridge, and rounding off village edges is not relevant to local interests when the development looks to build upon long standing grasslands and Green Belt.

As far we can establish from the very limited information provided, the sole new circumstance that might warrant re-assessment of this land is the vague statement that the development will benefit from Cambridge South station and East West Rail, neither of which are based on fact. As you must be aware, there will be no benefit to Shelford or Stapleford from either of these rail projects:
1. Few are ever likely to use the Shelford station to commute to Cambridge South. Existing residents working in that area either cycle or drive as the time lost walking to the station and getting there early enough to cross the line in case the barriers go down beforehand, then walk at the other end, plus the cost for such a short journey does not appeal to many at all.
2. The East West Rail project will not stop in Shelford, and has only adverse impact on the village due to the associated construction/development work and additional rumbling heavy goods noise.

We are not alone in this concern, as when reviewing the public responses to your own consultation we note that:
1. 65% of respondents say 'No' to removal of land from Green Belt.
2. 48% say to keep the current approach (i.e. the 2018 Local Plan) to housing numbers, with 24% saying they should be further restricted.
3. Only 14% thought Green Belt at the edge of Cambridge should be used.

It is of huge local and environmental importance that the above issues are fully taken into consideration, and this flawed decision is not arbitrarily waved through to consultation. As residents, there are a number of questions that the Planning Officers must answer, including:
1. What is the new 'exceptional circumstance' required by planning law to reassess this area?
2. How have you assessed the poor quality access to this site?
3. How has the proposed bus-way and retirement village been factored into the Green Belt release assessment?
4. How have you modelled your suggestion that residents will use East-West rail and the Cambridge South Station?
5. What is the assessment of impact on local services (e.g. schooling, GPs etc)?
6. What is the environmental impact of building over long term bio-diverse grassland?

This endless and continual re-opening of the question of developing this land is of considerable stress to local residents which is why there is a legal barrier to such actions, which appear to have been bypassed in this case. It would be sensible to remove this proposal from the draft local plan prior to consultation, as it is only likely to cause considerable future legal hold-up. It is also worth observing that the allocation of 100 houses is insignificant to the full Local Plan at only 0.2% of the 49,000 total planned, and destroying the biodiverse meadow would be even less.

We look forward to your full response to our questions, and as our council representatives hope for a strong voice opposing this development, for the reasons outlined above.