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. Whittlesford). 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 Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge, 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 Whittlesford, 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 settlements such as Whittlesford Bridge.
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.

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. Whittlesford). 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.
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.

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 prevent stagnation and the 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. Whilst 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. Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal. For example, rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality scheme with extensive landscaping where it would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.
A carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.

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 prevent stagnation and the 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. Longstanton). Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal; rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality scheme 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 Longstanton, the current strategy to restrict schemes 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 Longstanton 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 Longstanton.
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.

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. Fulbourn). 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 minor rural centres such as Fulbourn, the current strategy to restrict schemes to an indicative maximum of 30 dwellings within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet the pressing local need for affordable homes. Put into context, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Fulbourn, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. Resultant affordability problems could arise across the rural area (stimulated by a paucity in affordable housing supply), particularly if the Greater Cambridge area continues along its current growth trajectory.
With limited scope for development within tightly drawn settlement boundaries, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of sustainable settlements. Therefore, 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 Fulbourn.
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.

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. Bourn). 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 Bourn, 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 expansions in employment. For example, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Bourn, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. Resultant affordability problems could arise across the rural area (stimulated by a paucity in affordable housing supply), particularly if the Greater Cambridge area continues along its current growth trajectory.
With limited scope for development within tightly drawn settlement boundaries, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of sustainable settlements. Therefore, 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 Bourn.
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.

In line with their promotion of Land north of Cambridge Road, Linton, Taylor Wimpey advocate that the site should be included within the settlement boundary of Linton as part of the allocation of the site for residential development.

In line with their promotion of land at Fen Ditton, Countryside advocate that the site should be released from the Green Belt and included within the settlement boundary of Fen Ditton as part of the allocation of the site for residential-led development.

Policy S/SB relates to Settlement Boundaries. Details of settlement boundaries have not been provided at this stage but are to be drawn on the Policies Map that will accompany the draft Local Plan for consultation. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Topic Paper 1: Strategy explains: “Defining settlement boundaries (previously known as development frameworks) is necessary to ensure that the countryside is protected from gradual encroachment, but in particular they help guard against incremental growth in unsustainable locations”.
This approach is considered to be overly restrictive and does not accord with paragraph’s 69 and 79 of the NPPF, which states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution towards housing. . This policy direction should not preclude growth in sustainable locations, which may include sites well related to settlements but previously outside of settlement boundaries. It is noted that in the past settlement boundaries have been drawn to tightly, and do not provide for many (if any) windfall opportunities.
The settlement boundary for Orwell were last reviewed some time before the Adopted Proposals Map Published January 2010. The tight settlement boundary has artificially constrained development in a village which has a good range of services and facilities. Not allowing sufficient land within settlement boundaries for windfall sites is contrary to Paragraph 69 c) of the NPPF. The south-east side of site 40496 abuts Orwell’s settlement boundary. It is considered that the site would form a logical extension to Orwell, resulting in a site that is well related to the existing village, and that would not create amenity issues for existing residential properties.