S/SB: Settlement boundaries

Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the ‘organic’ growth of smaller settlements. To ensure that local housing needs can be fulfilled and prevent any further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.

Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the ‘open countryside’. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Although sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm (e.g. Great Abington). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality development with extensive landscaping that would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.

Furthermore, for Group Villages such as Great Abington, the current strategy to restrict developments to an indicative maximum of 8 dwellings (or 15 dwellings where this would make the best use of a single brownfield site) within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet the existing need for affordable homes or the projected need that could follow nearby business park expansions. As a result, the affordability crisis will deepen in the rural area. For example, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Great Abington, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. With limited scope for development within the tightly drawn settlement boundary, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of the village. To discourage the development of less suitable sites and assist in the delivery of much-needed affordable housing, the most logical approach is to allocate further sites on the edge of sustainable villages such as Great Abington.

Overall, a carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.

Greater Cambridge has taken a sensible approach to settlement boundaries by taking into account present and proposed development. Periodic reviews may need to be made to the policies map to ensure that the boundaries remain up to date in the event of windfall or rural exceptions development. Huntingdonshire District Council agree that small clusters of buildings, isolated properties and hamlets should not be provided with a settlement boundary and should be considered as countryside. This will enable the character of the area to be preserved and countryside and landscape impact to be minimised.

We welcome the approach to fully review the existing settlement boundaries within this new Local Plan. However, we believe that development boundaries should be removed and replaced with a criterion-based assessment. This will add flexibility to the policy and allow for individual sites to be judged on their own merits. It would also still prevent inappropriate development in the open countryside but allow for additional development on small sites in sustainable locations. The NPPF seeks to prevent development on ‘isolated’ sites but Local Plans should include a flexible approach to allow for the sustainable credentials of each site to be evaluated rather than preventing development completely just because a site falls outside of a boundary line. A similar approach has recently been adopted in Huntingdonshire which has enabled this flexibility. This is particularly important around existing communities and settlements which have changed in character over time.

OBJECT

Bloor Homes Eastern does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity of land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Bloor Homes Eastern at land east of Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard is available for development of housing and should be allocated. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

A review of settlement boundaries should be undertaken as part of the new Local Plan process is supported. They should be drawn around properties that are considered to part of a village.

A case where the settlement boundary should be extended is to the south of Fowlmere along the west side of Chrishall Road. Appleacre Park, the development of 16 approved entry level house, Lanacre along Chrishall Road, and properties to the west of these properties, should all be included within the settlement boundary of Fowlmere. These properties form part of the village and walking distance of the village centre.

Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the 2004 Local Plan. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041, and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

Settlement boundaries are essential for controlling development around villages, and should be preserved and protected.

The Local Plan (LP) states that it will include settlement boundaries around settlements, identifying areas that are considered to be part of the settlement for planning purposes. However, it fails to include, or refer to the area between Fen Ditton and Horningsea known as Honey Hill despite the fact that building a commercial development there extends the building capacity of North East Cambridge as described in the proposed North East Cambridge Area Action Plan.

Supported

OBJECT

Endurance Estates does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of capacity within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Endurance Estates at land off Old House Road in Balsham is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

Endurance Estates does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of capacity within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The three sites promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn are all located immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary for the village, are suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages, including Bassingbourn, to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

This approach is good.

Ickleton PC strongly supports this policy. In the absence of such a policy, it would be difficult to prevent the encroachment of settlements on the countryside, and small rural communities could quickly lose their character. Potential rural exception sites would dry up while proposals based on maximising developer profits would predominate.

OBJECT

Mr James Manning does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Mr James Manning at land off Station Road in Willingham is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

Hill Residential do not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Fulbourn, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary, and the Green Belt restricts development outside the settlement boundary. The proposed development at the Ida Darwin Hospital site was a longstanding allocation, the proposed development off Teversham Road was approved at a time when the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, and the proposed development to the west of Balsham Road was a rural housing exception scheme; as set out in the representations to Section 2.6/Policy S/RRA affordable housing needs have and will remain despite these developments. It is very likely that all other development opportunities that did exist within Fulbourn have been taken up by now, and any that do remain (other than the outstanding proposed developments) would be for one or two dwellings only that are not required to provide affordable housing.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity of land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Hill Residential at land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development.

Requested Change

It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

OBJECT

Enterprise Residential Development Ltd and the Davison Group does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity of land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Enterprise Residential Development Ltd and the Davison Group at Meadow Drift, Elsworth should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

We support this approach in general.

In relation to “Outside settlement boundaries, we propose that no development would be permitted except for - development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses that need to be located in the countryside”. Changes to permitted development rights mean that some of these uses could subsequently be converted into residential or other employment uses, effectively circumventing the policies within the Local Plan. We would like to see a policy within the Local Plan that requires any such permissions to be conditional that they cannot be subject to a permitted change of use and that any change of use would require a planning application

There should be clear green separation between settlement boundaries. A minimum separation should be given, to prevent piecemeal ribbon development

General agreement. Village boundaries are the natural limit and to be respected. Flood plains to be respected.

Marshall supports the need for defined settlement boundaries, which indicate the extent of existing and planned development and help to guard the countryside against incremental growth. In defining the settlement boundary on the eastern edge of Cambridge, consideration should be given to the safeguarding land east of Airport Way, in order to accommodate for the relocated Park & Ride and allow for any future expansion of Cambridge East. Given the sustainability of the site and the location, the expansion of Cambridge East would be the logical place to locate future growth, whether that is determined through this local plan or through subsequent plans.

In line with their promotion of the Former Waste Water Treatment Works at Hauxton, and in light of significant forthcoming infrastructure projects, Bridgemere Land Plc advocate that the Site should be included within the settlement boundary of Hauxton for the provision of either a significantly increased quantity of housing, employment or a mixture of both.

The drawing of settlement boundaries around settlements in order to identify areas that are considered to be part of the settlement for planning purposes is again a common approach adopted by most local plans.
We believe that any proposed development allocation sites should be included within the settlement boundaries and therefore we agree with the proposed policy direction to define the boundaries based on “the present extent of the built-up area as well as planned new development”.
As will be expanded on in our response to policy to S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster, we believe the amended site areas we have put forward for the land east of Cambridge Road, Sawston SHLAA Ref: 531, and the land east of Haverhill Road, Stapleford SHLAA Ref: 530 are both capable of accommodating housing developments and therefore should be included within the settlement boundaries of their respective settlements.

OBJECT

Hawkswren does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of capacity within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Hawkswren in Orwell is located adjacent to the settlement boundary for the village, is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages, including Orwell, to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

Representations to Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals
On behalf of TTP Campus Ltd

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by the TTP Group to make the necessary and relevant submissions to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals document which has been published for consultation.

TTP Group (The Technology Partnership) was established over 34 years ago to create a world leading technology and development organisation. This work has evolved into the TTP Group which is formed by a range of businesses focused on the needs of companies planning to flourish through the use of technology and innovation.
As the enterprise has grown, new companies have been created, some of which have remained within the TTP Group whilst others have been sold, demerged and floated on the London Stock Exchange. The Group is quite rightly proud of its heritage and legacy and an integral part of its success is reflected in its long standing close links with the local community in Melbourn where more recently TTP secured a very significant planning permission to relocate its headquarters building to a site directly north of the existing Melbourn Science Park.

The granting of planning permission on the Birchwood Site

In 2018, TTP submitted a planning application for some 10,000 sq.m. of new commercial floorspace on land north of Melbourn Science Park. Consequently, planning permission was granted in March 2019 for “new office and technology research facilities” under planning application reference S/2941/18/FL. The granting of this permission enabled TTP to set out a clear business strategy for expansion which consented 10,974 sq.m. of new floorspace in two phases comprising:

• The main building (known as The Hive”)
• The Technology Barn
• The Service Building
• The Conference Pod
• The Forum Pod

Since the granting of the original permission a number of design changes were made and resulted in the issuing of a new permission (Section 73) granted in June 2020 (planning application reference S/4535/19/VC). A number of non material amendments were made and all relevant conditions were discharged to enable development to begin on site. Works are at advanced stage on site. A copy of the approved site layout granted planning permission together with the red line application boundary is submitted alongside this text.
It is important to acknowledge at the time of the submission of the application back in 2018 and importantly at the time of determination by the local planning authority, the application site lay outside the identified settlement boundary for Melbourn in the Adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It was the case at the time of the submission of the original application back in 2018 that the proposals were considered as a departure to the Adopted Local Plan having regard to the Council’s policy position and largely due to the site’s location within what was considered to be countryside where restrictive policies would apply .

Whilst acknowledging that the proposed development would have an impact on the landscape and there would be a loss of agricultural land, the Council also recognised the significant case put forward by the applicant demonstrating the importance of new research and office buildings to support the future needs of TTP adjacent to its existing group of companies and workforce - they acknowledged the continuing importance of TTP in the content of the delivery of important technologies at the regional, national and international market and the planned expansion being able to contribute to local amenities.

The adopted Local Plan policies which sought to ensure the promotion of employment clusters, the development of the employment sector within village frameworks as well as a policy which supported new employment development on the edge of villages were all relevant to the consideration of the planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority acknowledged that there was no specific employment policy within the adopted plan which was directly relevant to the development proposal but it was the case that TTP put forward a case of other material planning considerations to take into account when determining the application. This included the assessment of the economic and social role that TTP play both in terms of the village but also their wider role within the employment sector as a hugely successful home-grown company maintaining significant links to the village.

Consequently, when weighing up the material considerations, officers considered that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of environmental harm would not be significant and were demonstrably outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the proposal when taken as a whole.

The granting of this planning permission for the site and its implementation and the current construction on site has clearly changed the character of the area. The previously agricultural character of the land has now been transformed into what will now become a new large modern office and research campus encompassing a series of buildings set in a redesigned landscape with the consequent infrastructure requirements of parking and internal road, cycleways and pathways. The consented scheme and this change in character as a result of the planning permission being implemented now means that this needs the new emerging Joint Local Plan to recognise this context. ie, a change to the inset boundary to include that application boundary within the settlement limit for Melbourn. (see enclosed plan)

This is reflective of the Council’s approval for the development and the recognition that the character of the site and its immediate surroundings will change as a result of the built form and the necessary infrastructural and landscaping works which will come forward as part of the proposal.

Policy S/DS – Development Strategy
One of the key roles for a new Local Plan for the Cambridge area is to set out the proposed strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places. The overall strategy is one of directing development to where it has the least climate impact, where active and public transport is a natural choice, where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live, whilst ensuring that all necessary utilities can be provided in a sustainable way.
Clearly, there is a significant change in the character between the built area and the rural area around it and therefore it is imperative that wherever new development comes forward that the distinctive character of the City, towns and villages are not adversely affected through new development.
In this context it is important that any development strategy being adopted by the planning authorities exploits and takes up the opportunities to use brownfield land (previously developed land) to ensure ,where appropriate, the protection of other more sensitive locations in the countryside. In the context of Melbourn, submissions have been made to amend the village framework to acknowledge the change in character of the landscape having regard to the granting of the planning permission for the new TTP headquarters north of Melbourn Science Park. Placing the new buildings within the settlement envelope is the logical approach and acknowledges the policy context where potential expansion could occur on that site having regard to its location within the development envelope. Clearly, the normal development management policies would apply of design, materials, privacy and amenity but importantly the principle of development in that location should not be one that is an issue.
Certainly the principle of supporting new employment development within existing settlements is not new to the plan and we are pleased to see under Policy J/NE “New Employment Development Proposals” that the proposed policy direction with the new local plan is one that acknowledges that employment development (classes E9g), B2 and B8) will be supported “within towns and villages, where it is of an appropriate scale and character to the location and scale of development. The policy would cover both new premises and the expansion of existing premises” (page 228 of the consultation document)

The policy direction for new employment development as set out in the consultation document on page 228 reflects the need of the Councils to acknowledge the crucial role that the Cambridge area plays in terms of the local and national economy. It must provide the policy context for positive growth in the economy and has sought to do this by supporting identified employment clusters for the larger employment locations such as Babraham and at Granta Park as well as the new towns at Northstowe and at Waterbeach.

At the more local level the Councils have allocated a mixed use site adjacent to Melbourn Science Park including some 2.5 has for employment use. The wording under proposed policy S/RRA/CR on page 128 of the consultation document states that such an element represents an opportunity to expand Melbourn Science Park . the allocation is supported by TPP on the basis that such an allocation reflects an acknowledge of the role that Melbourn plays as a Rural Centre in the Plan and the very real important links that the Park has to the local community.

We acknowledge a requirement to identify existing settlements and their boundaries. It should be acknowledged however that this reflects a snapshot in time. A blanket ban on development outside of a settlement boundary should not be adopted as is in effect currently proposed. Rather policy should allow for the consideration of all future proposals on their respective merits in line with the NPPF.

Land off Beach Road, Cottenham is closer to many existing facilities and services than existing built-up areas of the settlement. As has been determined on previous applications approved in Cottenham the location of a site outside the settlement boundary does not necessarily prejudice its accessibility nor the ability for development to integrate with and complement existing development.

In line with their promotion of Land North of Impington Lane, Impington, Hill Residential Limited consider that the settlement boundary should be amended to include this Site which is currently adjacent to the boundary to be included as part of the allocation of the site for residential development.

OBJECT

Bloor Homes Eastern does not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. It is very likely that most of the development opportunities within existing village boundaries would have been taken up by now. It is also likely that heritage assets within some villages, such as conservation areas and listed buildings, will constrain development opportunities.

The Councils have not undertaken an assessment of the capacity land within the existing settlement boundaries of villages to accommodate additional development. It is likely that such an assessment would demonstrate that the capacity is limited.

It is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate suitable sites on the edge of existing sustainable villages and to adjust the settlement boundary to accommodate those allocations. The site promoted by Bloor Homes Eastern at land west of Linton is suitable and available for housing, and should be allocated for development. There is a need for additional housing sites in the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities and to meet identified affordable housing needs in those villages.

Requested Change
It is requested that a capacity assessment is undertaken of all villages in South Cambridgeshire to determine which potential housing sites might be deliverable or developable during the plan period to 2041 and the number of dwellings that might be delivered from each of those sites.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs it is requested that additional allocations are made on the edge of those villages to deliver sufficient housing to meet those affordable housing needs.

Bruntwood SciTech are the recent new freehold owners of Melbourn Science Park and as landowners, seek to engage proactively with the plan making process. Established in 2018, Bruntwood SciTech is a 50:50 joint venture between Bruntwood and Legal & General and is the UK’s largest property provider dedicated to driving the growth of the science and technology sector.

With 10 campuses in six locations across Birmingham, Cheshire, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge, Bruntwood SciTech provides significant opportunities for science and tech businesses to connect, collaborate and grow.

With the new Joint Local Plan that is intended to run up to 2041, it is imperative that landowners such as Bruntwood Sci Tech are involved in the process of shaping policies and plans over this period of time.
Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by Bruntwood SciTech to make the necessary submissions. (Savills have acted for Melbourn Science Park Ltd as previous owners of the site).

We confirm that a strategy of preparing the first Joint Local Plan for the Cambridge area is supported. There is a very strong symbiotic relationship between the built up area of Cambridge and the surrounding 101 villages as well as the market towns lying further afield. Given that many living within the surrounding villages turn to the City for work, retail, leisure and entertainment it is clear that a planning framework that acknowledges this relationship needs to be developed.

Paragraph 2.1
Figure 4 is an illustrative map showing the locations of proposed new housing development 2020 – 2041 and identifies a site at Melbourn for 140 homes. On the basis of the supporting paragraphs, it is logical to assume that the reasons behind the Council identifying new development in Melbourn is consistent with the strategy of directing development to where it has the least climate impact, where active and public transport is the natural choice, or green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development and where jobs, services and facilities can be located near to where people live.

In the context of the proposed new housing development in Melbourn, it is the case that the village retains a very strong employment base and the history of major companies being attracted to the village continues to evolve - the current expansion of the new TTP group headquarters on the northern side of Melbourn Science Park and the aspirations of the new owners of that Park (Bruntwood SciTech) reflect the strong commitment of firms to invest in Melbourn. It is Bruntwood Sci Tech’s objective to become the leading network of thriving innovation districts acquiring buildings and sites for the long term and currently brings together a collaborative community of over 500 businesses across the UK. Its business strategy is to continue to grow the business through further acquisitions and the steady growth of existing sites and aims to provide 40,000 high value jobs over next 10 years whilst helping to level-up and rebalance the UK economy. As part of this growth, the company provides business support as standard, supporting science and tech companies to form, scale and grow. This includes facilitating access to finance, talent and new markets through connections and an extensive partner network to support the growth of the UK knowledge economy.
The recognition that the Plan gives to Melbourn as a location where growth can occur is important. The relationship between homes and jobs is, of course not a direct one but the provision of major employment opportunity in villages such as Melbourn is intended to reduce travel to work distances and provide the very opportunities that should exist in every settlement for people who wish to live in that village.


Policy S/JH “New Jobs and Homes”
The proposed new Local Plan is intended to follow the objectively assessed needs for development within the plan period 2020 – 2021 to meet the following:
• 58,500 jobs
• 44,400 homes which reflects an annual objectively assessed need of 2,111 homes per year.
The identification of 58,500 jobs reflects the choice of the Councils to provide for the medium growth level from the strategic options that were published in November 2020. The Council contend that this is the most likely figure of new jobs coming forward and whilst they are cognisant of the fact that the research identified the higher growth forecast, it is intended that the plan builds in some flexibility in case the market delivers more jobs than anticipated.

Policy S/DS “Development Strategy”
This policy sets out the proposed strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of spaces created within Greater Cambridge and sets out where the homes identified in Policy S/GH should be located in order to meet the vision and aims of the Local Plan. In such a context, a development strategy is proposed which reflects the Councils’ intention to largely retain the Cambridge Green Belt whilst directing growth within Cambridge (20%, the edge of Cambridge (24%), new settlements (38%) and finally the rural areas (18%). The broad strategy is one where jobs and homes can be located close to each other and served by good quality public transport, cycling and walking lengths. Whilst the text does not specifically relate to Melbourn which is the home of Melbourn Science Park now owned by Bruntwood SciTech, it does refer to housing and employment in villages that have good public transport access and are close to jobs.

The development strategy needs to continue to tackle significant commuting patterns that have been established over many years between the outlying villages and Cambridge City. The presence of a tightly drawn Green Belt around the edge of the City and then tightly around the necklace villages and beyond means that the opportunities for expansion on the edge of Cambridge and on the surrounding villages is extremely limited. Consequently, this strategy places great reliance on those areas outside of the Cambridge Green Belt to develop and consolidate their employment sector to provide attractive locations for new investment and jobs. Melbourn Science Park provides such a significant opportunity and the new owners will continue to work with the local planning authorities in order to introduce new investment into the Park whilst ensuring that the very qualities and legacy that has been established over many years continues to thrive and prosper.

Policy S/SH “Settlement Hierarchy”
This policy within the Joint Local Plan is intended to group similar settlements into categories that reflect their scale, characteristics and sustainability. The village of Melbourn remains as a Rural Centre within this emerging Local Plan and is supported having regard to the acknowledgement that the Council’s recognise the role that the village can play in accommodating new development and in particular the allocation for a mixed use site on the eastern side of Melbourn Science Park. A Rural Centre places a settlement in a settlement hierarchy which acknowledges its sustainable location and the opportunity that this brings for new investment in terms of new housing as well as supply of new jobs.
In such a context, with Melbourn Science Park having been developed in its current form some 40 years ago, the demands of tenants, new sustainability targets and technology require a review and assessment of new building provision in order to attract new jobs and investment. Bruntwood SciTech as the new owners of Melbourn Science Park recognise the opportunity for the redevelopment of Melbourn Science Park as a previously developed site to bring forward new buildings and open spaces and land uses which are forward thinking and much better reflect the needs and demands of tenants, the businesses in general as well as visitors and the local community. The opportunity to make the best use of previously developed land in this location in a settlement identified as a Rural Centre is logical and reflects a sensible strategy with the opportunities of growth need not all be on greenfield land but rather need to critically analyse existing forms and sites to make best use of a limited resource.
It is the case that the acquisition of Melbourn Science Park is seen as a key strategic component of Bruntwood SciTech ’s science and technology business and will enable them to share knowledge and expertise across these sectors. The intention is to ensure that the site grows as a successful science and technology cluster that is sustainable in the long-term and contributes to the wider Cambridge economy. The company’s experience in these sectors, and with their relationship with funders, aligned to their commitment to expansion ensures that Bruntwood Sci Tech are ideally placed to deliver further growth at Melbourn Science Park.


Policy S/RRA/CR – Land to the West of Cambridge Road, Melbourn
A new mixed use allocation is identified on a 6.5 hectare site immediately to the west of Cambridge Road, Melbourn adjacent to Melbourn Science Park. This allocation has an indicative capacity for approximately 120 homes and some 2.5 hectares for employment uses. As a site that lies adjacent to Melbourn Science Park, there is a clear opportunity to enhance the village’s existing employment sector through more jobs and investment and providing a logical extension to the Park whilst planning for the adjacent residential development in an appropriate manner. Clearly, the layout and the integration with the adjacent Park will be critical and the ability to provide a sensible and logical arrangement for such uses can be achieved and consequently the identification of this allocation is supported by Bruntwood SciTech as the new owners of Melbourn Science Park.

Policy J/NE “New Employment Development Proposals”
This policy is intended to set out criteria which will determine whether proposals for employment development in urban areas, villages and the countryside are acceptable.
Having regard to our clients’ interests within the existing Melbourn Science Park which is already contained within the built up area of Melbourn, it is entirely appropriate that the proposed policy direction within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan is one that simply assesses the appropriate scale and character having regard to its location and the scale of settlement. It is entirely appropriate in this context to acknowledge that the present use of the site as a employment park is accepted and that the nature and scale of its existing character provides the opportunity for redevelopment to develop a much more modern approach to employment parks and to work alongside the authorities and the local community to develop a strong vision that continues the legacy of this part of the village to the village of Melbourn. As the Local Plan quite rightly acknowledges, for developments within town and village settlement boundaries, it is the scale and character that are key to ensuring that the overall character of the settlement is maintained. In such a case the Council expect that larger proposals are likely to be considered favourably in towns and Rural Centres and where Melbourn as identified as the latter within the settlement hierarchy it is entirely appropriate that our client looks positively at the opportunities that exist for redevelopment of the park. Whilst the Local Plan similarly does not list Melbourn Science Park as one of the key employment sites outside the Green Belt as stated in the Local Plan 2018, supporting text to Policy J/NE states that development in locations which provide a range of suitable units, including for start ups, SME’s and incubatory units will be supported.

Hill do not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to take into account allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

At Foxton, the settlement boundary should be amended to include land off Station road as shown on site 40159 of the Call for Sites

Policy S/SB Settlement Boundary (P51)

We acknowledge a requirement to identify existing settlements and their boundaries. It should be acknowledged however that this reflects a snapshot in time. A blanket ban should not be adopted on development outside of the settlement boundaries, as is in effect currently proposed. Rather policy should allow for the consideration of all future proposals on their respective merits in line with the NPPF.

Recommendation: Policy should not put a blanket ban on development outside of the settlement boundary, in effect pre-judging any such proposal, rather it should set out a series of criteria allowing development where needed to support and enhance a village location to be assessed on its respective merits.